Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a conditional chain of A→B→C; (A) gives two independent sufficient conditions for one necessary condition (food in apartment→ in refrigerator; food purchased in the last week → in refrigerator).

The stimulus concludes A→C; (A) concludes that there is a conditional relationship between the two independent sufficient conditions (food in apartment→ food purchased in the last week).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a conditional chain of A→B→C; (B) gives one sufficient condition with two independent necessary conditions (food in refrigerator→ in apartment; food in refrigerator→ purchased in the last week.

The stimulus concludes A→C; (B) concludes that there is a conditional relationship between the two independent necessary conditions (food in apartment→ food purchased in the last week).

The diagram for (C) matches the diagram of the stimulus:

Mismatched conclusion. The stimulus gives the conditional chain A→B→C and concludes A→C; (D) gives a similar conditional chain (food in apartment→ food in refrigerator→ purchased in the last week) but then reverses the conditional relationship. Instead of concluding “food in apartment→ purchased in the last week,” (D) makes the invalid conclusion of “purchased in the last week→ food in apartment.”

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a conditional chain of A→B→C; (E) gives one sufficient condition with two independent necessary conditions (food purchased in the last week→ in refrigerator; food purchased in the last week→ in apartment.

The stimulus concludes A→C; (E) concludes that there is a conditional relationship between the two independent necessary conditions (food in apartment→ food in refrigerator).