(A) appeals to a probability to make a prediction about the future. The stimulus appeals to an outcome to draw a conclusion about what probably occurred in the past, so it's not a match.

(B) references a trait common to a group to infer something about a member of that group. The stimulus refers to an expected outcome to draw a conclusion about what probably occurred in the past. These two don't match.

At a glance, (C) looks like it might match the stimulus. That means we need to take a closer look so we can determine whether each detail matches. And that's easier if we abstract the argument into a pattern:

lottery fair → _unlikelywinner won
lottery unfair → _likelywinner won
______
_unlikelylottery fair

This is similar but not the same as the stimulus: note the different premise about what would be likely if the lottery were unfair. (C) doesn't match all the details so isn't correct.

On first glance, (D) looks like it could match the stimulus. So let's take a closer look so we can determine whether each detail matches. To help us do so, we can abstract the argument into a pattern:

missed bus → _unlikelywork on time
work on time
______
_unlikelymissed bus

These elements exactly match the stimulus in logical structure. Although the elements are presented in a different order, their logical relationship is the same.

(E) appeals to a probability to predict the future, and concludes with a definite prediction. The stimulus appeals to an observed outcome to conclude probably occurred in the past, which is a different method of reasoning.