Mismatched premises and conclusion. While the stimulus operates by diverting responsibility for an action’s negative consequences, (A) references a study that exposes a mismatch between professionals’ training and the work they perform.

(A) does not conclude that someone isn’t responsible for fixing a harmful result. (A) concludes that those who use a service (parents) should ensure that those providing the service (teachers) are qualified to do so.

In this argument, the speaker claims that someone (parents) should not be responsible for fixing a negative consequence that may appear to result from their actions (offenses of their older adolescent children) because that consequence was actually the responsibility of some independent party (adolescents with free will).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. While the stimulus operates by diverting responsibility for an action’s negative consequences, (C) objects to certain requirements (reading assignments) on the grounds that those requirements aren’t necessary for a certain objective (doing well in the course).

(C) does not operate by diverting responsibility for negative consequences of an action. (C) concludes that certain complaints were justified.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, which operates by diverting responsibility for an action’s negative consequences, (D) cites a potential conflict of interest (family relation) to support the conclusion that someone (the most recent appointee to the prize committee) shouldn’t have a certain responsibility (selecting the winner).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. While the stimulus operates by diverting responsibility for an action’s negative consequences, (E) references testimony (reports of conversations with the villagers) that contradicts the claims of someone else (the politician).

(E) does not conclude that someone shouldn’t be responsible for fixing a negative result. Instead, the speaker in (E) concludes that they are skeptical of a claim.