(A) starts by presenting a correlation between two factors (fresh food and nutritious food) and giving evidence that the second factor (nutritious food) causally contributes to a third factor (health). It then incorrectly concludes that an increase in the third factor is evidence of an increase in the first. The stimulus also combines a correlation and a causal relationship to conclude that an increase in a certain factor is evidence of an increase in another factor, so (A) matches.

Wrong flaw. (B) presents a single correlation: people who hide their finances are usually guilty of impropriety. It then incorrectly assumes that this correlation must apply in a specific instance. The stimulus, however, combines a correlation and a causal relationship to conclude that an increase in a certain factor is evidence of an increase in another factor, so (B) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. (C) presents a preference that people have (disliking public transit when they have a lot of bags), and then concludes that this preference will make them use cars instead. We don’t know if people will act on this preference, so the conclusion doesn’t follow. The stimulus, meanwhile, combines a correlation and a causal relationship to conclude that an increase in a certain factor is evidence of an increase in another factor, so (C) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. (D) gives us evidence (people are overweight and don’t exercise) that seems to contradict statistics (people are healthier and living longer) to undermine a conditional relationship. We don’t know if the statistics are accurate, so the conclusion doesn’t have to be true. The stimulus, meanwhile, combines a correlation and a causal relationship to conclude that an increase in a certain factor is evidence of an increase in another factor, so (D) doesn’t match.

No flaw. If people only watch what they enjoy, and more people are watching television than ever before, then it’s reasonable to conclude that people enjoy at least some of what they watch.