The argument’s premise establishes that a small business that makes a particular change (didn’t advertise on Internet, but begins to advertise on Internet) usually experiences a particular effect (improved financial situation). The conclusion asserts that most small business that make that same change can cause that same effect.

The premise doesn’t present an effect that is usually/typically/generally observed. Rather, the premise tells us only that for “certain” small companies, they experienced improved financial situations. We don’t know that this applies to most small companies that have begun to advertise on the Internet.

The conclusion isn’t parallel, because it isn’t limited to businesses that “first” begin to advertise on the Internet. The premise concerns businesses that first begin to advertise; this doesn’t support a conclusion about increasing Internet advertising when one already does some of it.

The premise tells us about what is typically necessary in order to see an improvement in financial situation. This isn’t parallel to the stimulus, which didn’t present any necessary conditions for seeing an effect.

The conclusion asserts that businesses could become “financially strong,” which is different from the claim that a business could improve their financial postion. This argument commits a relative/absolute flaw, which isn’t something the argument in the stimulus committed.