Wrong flaw. We’re given two groups—animals and humans—that both share a similarity. The conclusion then attempts to explain the similarity, despite no evidence supporting this explanation. The stimulus, meanwhile, gives two groups that share a similarity, and then concludes that the second group must belong to the first group, so (A) doesn’t match.

No flaw. We’re given two groups—plastic arts and poetry—that share a similarity, but the argument doesn’t conclude that poetry must be a plastic art. It instead says that this shared characteristic can’t be used to distinguish between the two, which is a much better argument.

We’re given two groups—organisms and communities—that share a common trait. It then concludes that the second group belongs to the first group because of this similarity. This matches the same flaw in the stimulus of concluding that one group must belong to another because of a shared similarity.

No flaw. (D) establishes a necessary condition for the effectiveness of some vitamins, and then concludes that a certain vitamin will not be as effective in preventing diseases if this necessary condition is not met. The stimulus, meanwhile, gives two groups that share a similarity, and then concludes that the second group must belong to the first group, so (D) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. (E) gives us two groups (friendship and other forms of cooperation) that share a similarity (involving burdensome obligations). The conclusion then incorrectly shifts from involving burdensome obligations to requiring that priority be given to non-selfish goals. The stimulus, meanwhile, gives two groups that share a similarity, and then concludes that the second group must belong to the first group, so (E) doesn’t match.