This goes wrong when we get to the “not all” statement. The first two statements look like this:

Calculators → computers → device for automated reasoning

In order to be parallel, we want a premise that asserts some computers are not calculators. But we don’t get that. Instead, we get a premise asserting that some devices for automated reasoning are not calculators.

This goes wrong with the conclusion. The first two statements look like this:

Exercise → beneficial → promote health

Then we’re told that some beneficial things are not forms of exercise. To be parallel, we want the conclusion to assert that some things that promote health are not exercise. But we don’t get that. We get instead the claim that some exercise does not promote health.

This goes wrong with the two conditional premises. We know that all metaphors are comparison and all metaphors are surprising. But these don’t connect to form an “A → B → C” connection.

This goes wrong with the conclusion. The first two premises look like this:

architecture → design → art

Then we learn that some design is not architecture. In order to be parallel, we want the conclusion to assert that some art is not architecture. But we don’t get that. We get instead the claim that some art is not design.

This matches every piece of reasoning. The two premises look like this:

books → texts → documents

Then we learn that some texts are not books. Then the argument reaches the valid conclusion that some documents are not books.