(A) should fail your shallow dip when it affirms one of the options (al-Sofi did receive an advance) instead of eliminating it: we want “al-Sofi didn’t receive an advance, so they must have received a guarantee.”

The stimulus’ logic says “it must be one of these options.” (A)’s logic says “it can’t be both of these options.” Those two concepts are not the same.

(B) should fail your shallow dip when it affirms one of the options (Janine did ride Rocket first) instead of eliminating it: we want “Janine didn’t ride Rocket first, so she must have ridden Mouse first.”

The stimulus’ logic says “it must be one of these options.” (A)’s logic says “it can’t be both of these options.” Those two concepts are not the same.

Beyond that, (B)’s tangential discussion of where Janine was standing(???) is a total non sequitur and a big ol’ red flag.

(C) is wrong for reasons that are difficult to describe. Realistically, the best way to address (C) is to get vaguely skeeved out by its many complexities, let it survive your shallow dip, then recognize (E)’s rightness and pick it, never returning to fully examine (C).

There are a few avenues of attack against (C), all of which get into the weeds pretty quickly. I’ll just lay out one here: (C)'s relative conclusion, which says “Y is more eccentric than X.” That’s different from our template, which wants “it must be this other option.”

But maybe you’ve spotted the relative language in the stimulus – doesn’t the conclusion say A is more expensive than B?

Well yeah, kinda, but no. The stimulus’ core inference is that Ed will choose whichever prize is more expensive. The fact that A is more expensive than B is just a premise, unsupported by any of the other claims.

By contrast, (C)'s conclusion that Y’s orbit is more eccentric than X’s is supported by all the other claims about X and Y being affected by gravitational fields and whatnot. It’s a genuine conclusion.

This one’s my favorite: “There are exactly two options. BOTH OPTIONS SUCK! MIYOKO OOOOUUUUTTT!”

So yeah, (D) should fail your shallow dip when it doesn’t even pick one of the options.

As a metagame consideration, note the repeated concept of desire from the stimulus. Typically that’s an effort to tempt people who don’t realize preserving subject matter is irrelevant in parallel questions, which are all about structure.

(E) lays out exactly two strategies available to rabbits trying not to get murdered – doubling back and fleeing for cover. It then zooms in on a particular rabbit for whom one of those strategies (fleeing for cover) is unavailable. Then it concludes the rabbit will go with the other strategy (doubling back).

P.S. I hope you don’t get murdered, lil rabbit! 🐰