Wrong flaw. (A) discusses a whole-to-part flaw. The country erroneously took one player from each of the six best teams in the country, even though the teams being the best doesn’t imply that each of their players is the best. Meanwhile, in the stimulus, a part-to-whole flaw is committed, where a conclusion about a division is erroneously drawn based on the division’s employees.

Wrong flaw. (B) discusses one entity (the salesperson who exceeded the minimum goals) and, as a result, erroneously draws a conclusion about other, separate entities (the other salespeople). Meanwhile, the stimulus discusses a few parts of a division (the employees) and erroneously draws a conclusion about the entire division.

Wrong flaw. This discusses how a firm that made a new division studied portions of other successful firms (their credentials and composition), then erroneously concludes that the firm that made a new division must’ve created a great division because they studied the other firms. However, there’s no way to know whether the firm studied the right portions of other firms. Alternatively, in the stimulus, a part-to-whole flaw is committed, where a conclusion about a division is erroneously drawn based on the division’s employees.

The argument starts with a description of individual parts of some teams (the best players), then discusses how those individual parts were put together to form two new teams, and finally moves to a conclusion about those two new teams (that they must be the best teams). This commits the same part-to-whole flaw as the stimulus because the qualities of players on a team don’t tell us about the qualities of the team as a whole.

No flaw. If teams are competing in a tournament to win the tournament and your team wins, then your team is the best.