(A) compares the utility of two different skills (political insight and conducting campaigns) in selecting individuals for a certain objective (being elected into political office). The author concludes that sometimes one skill is sacrificed (in this case, political insight) in favor of another (convincing campaigns).

Mismatched premises and conclusions. The stimulus compares the utility of two different skills for achieving a certain objective, and concludes that one skill may be sacrificed in favor of the other.

(B) says that people in one profession (lawyers) may draw on techniques used by another profession (actors). This does not compare the utility of different skills.

Mismatched structure. While the stimulus is an argument with a premise that supports a conclusion, (C) is just a claim with no support structure.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus tells us that sometimes one skill is chosen over another in selecting individuals for a task; (D) is about how two different actions have different impacts, which does not align with the principle in the stimulus.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus discusses how different skills are balanced in selecting people for a task; (E) says that people are usually selected for a task because they meet predetermined qualifications, and concludes that it’s rarely the other way around, where a task is modified to fit someone’s skills. The stimulus does not mention changing a task to align with the skills of an applicant.