Mismatched premises and conclusion. This argument establishes a necessary condition that will certainly not be satisfied. From that inference, (A) triggers a sufficient condition to conclude that a particular outcome will certainly occur. The stimulus, in contrast, employs a necessary condition that will probably not be satisfied.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This argument assumes that, because it won’t be named after Wu, the new wing will be named after Rodriguez. The stimulus, however, references a necessary condition that is unlikely to be satisfied and concludes that a future event is likely to occur.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This gives us reason to believe that two people would hypothetically make bad business partners because they have traits that contradict how good partners act. The stimulus doesn’t make a hypothetical claim; it predicts that a future situation is unlikely to be avoided.

This proceeds by showing that a necessary condition is unlikely to be satisfied. Lopez being kept hydrated by his sponsors is a necessary condition for him winning the race, but his sponsors are unlikely to keep him hydrated. From this, (D) concludes that he’s unlikely to win.

Mismatched premises. This gives us a sufficient condition that will not be met, so its conclusion is flawed. Having a qualified instructor is sufficient—not necessary—for the course being in the spring. The stimulus, however, indicates that a necessary condition is unlikely to be satisfied and draws the proper conclusion.