No flaw. (A) presents a conditional relationship—if canned food, then more salt than frozen food. It then validly concludes that the sufficient condition leads to the necessary condition.

(B) presents a correlation: overcooked vegetables tend to have fewer vitamins. It then invalidly concludes that this correlation must apply in a specific instance. The stimulus also presents a correlation and then concludes it must be true in a specific instance, so (B) matches.

Wrong flaw. (C) doesn’t present a correlation, but instead presents a necessary condition for human health—minerals. It then invalidly concludes that something that has no minerals is unhealthy, without considering that it might help the body in other ways. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a correlation and assumes it must be true in a specific instance, so (C) doesn’t match.

Wrong flaw. (D) doesn't present a correlation, but instead gives us a “some” statement—some nuts make Roy’s throat itch. It then invalidly concludes that something containing a higher percentage of nuts is more likely to make Roy’s throat itch, without considering if it’s the type of nuts Roy is allergic to. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a correlation and assumes it must be true in a specific instance, so (D) doesn’t match.

No flaw. If eating at a restaurant is more expensive than eating at home, it’s okay to conclude that a home-cooked meal is cheaper than a restaurant meal.