Wrong flaw. Just because the price of gasoline has been rising doesn’t mean it will continue to do so! But that isn’t the same flaw from the stimulus—the stimulus doesn’t appeal to historical facts to make a prediction about the future; rather, it provides a fact about the future and attempts to use it to conclude another fact about the future. (A) also doesn’t have a part vs. whole flaw, as the stimulus does.

Wrong flaw. The conclusion here is worded too strongly to be supported by the given premises: if the government is unlikely to reduce taxes, then it’s likely that the sufficient condition for recession will be satisfied, but it isn’t a certainty (as (B)’s conclusion claims it is). This isn’t the same flaw from the stimulus, though: (B) doesn’t erroneously assume that an overall trend must impact specific individual elements included in the average.

The premise for this argument is that the average amount of time young people spend watching TV has increased. Because of this overall increase, the author concludes that an individual set of young people—namely, fourth graders—must have been watching more TV. This is the same cookie-cutter, part v. whole flaw seen in the stimulus: the author erroneously assumes that what’s true on average must be true of specific, individual elements included in the average.

No flaw. This is a valid argument! If the price of sugar goes up, the price of ice cream goes up. The price of sugar will go up, so we can validly conclude that the price of ice cream will follow suit!

No flaw. This is a valid argument! If the population of 20-30 year olds goes down, the price of real estate goes down. The population of 20-30 year olds will go down, so we can validly conclude that the price of real estate will follow suit!