Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by giving a condition in which a certain outcome can be met, then concludes that the fact that the outcome failed must have been because because the condition wasn’t met. (A) just says that there is a limited supply of something (fossil fuels) then concludes that using the resource faster will mean it’s gone sooner.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) compares two potential sources of satisfaction (doing a job well vs. doing a job you like merely adequately) and concludes that people seeking a certain outcome (happiness) should make a certain choice (the job you can do well). The stimulus does not involve this kind of net effect consideration, nor does it make a recommendation, so (B) does not parallel the stimulus.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus makes a generalization (that a species can survive a change if the change isn’t too rapid), while (C) is specifically speaking about “some” students.

The argument operates by giving a condition in which a certain outcome can be met (if people know what a change will bring, they won’t fear the change). The argument then concludes that the fact that the outcome failed (in this case, that the employees were scared) must have been because because the condition wasn’t met (the company didn’t keep the employees informed about the changes).

Mismatched premises. The stimulus operates by providing a generalization (about species survival) to a specific scenario (about these woodland species); (E) is missing this generalization.