Mismatched conclusion. This provides premises about people’s beliefs, but draws an unjustified conclusion about what’s actually true of computers. The stimulus, however, infers a conclusion about what some people believe.

Mismatched premises. This starts off right with a “some” claim about what people believe (some cat owners believe cats can’t feel guilty). But unlike the stimulus, (B) doesn’t present another belief that necessarily follows from that first belief. Instead, we’re told what necessarily follows from a different belief (if you believe cats can feel guilty, then you believe cats understand morality). So the initial “some” claim can’t chain together with the conditional claim to produce the stated conclusion.

This chains together a “some” claim about what people believe (some dog owners believe their dogs are emotionally attached) with a conditional claim about another belief that necessarily follows (if you believe your dogs are emotionally attached, you don’t believe dogs are incapable of thought). Putting these two claims together, we can validly conclude that some people don’t believe dogs are incapable of thought.

Mismatched premises. This starts off right with a “some” claim about what people believe (some people believe we’ll colonize other planets). But unlike the stimulus, (D) doesn’t present another belief that necessarily follows from that first belief. Instead, it says what’s probably also true. This already puts (D) on very shaky ground. (D) then reaches a different conclusion from what the premises support. (The premises are about those who probably do believe overpopulation isn’t a problem, but the conclusion suddenly shifts to talking about those who don’t believe it.)

Mismatched conclusion. This offers premises about people’s beliefs, but jumps to a mistaken conclusion about what’s actually true of planets. The stimulus, however, has both premises and a conclusion limited to people’s beliefs.