Mismatched premises. (A) establishes an action that might have positive effects (taking vitamin E), but it gives no evidence that everyone performing this action would ruin its benefits. The stimulus, however, gives us an action that conclusively has good effects, with evidence that everyone performing the action would ruin its benefits, so (A) doesn’t match.

Mismatched conclusion. (B) gives us an action with positive effects (taxing tobacco heavily) and a downside to taking this action to the extreme. Instead of concluding that not all governments should perform this action, however, (B) suggests other additional actions to take. The stimulus, meanwhile, concludes that not everyone should perform an action and does not offer any alternatives, so (B) doesn’t match.

The argument proceeds by presenting an action with positive effects (saving and investing), then concluding that not everyone should do it. This is because everyone performing the action would ruin its benefits.

Mismatched conclusion. (D) gives us an action with both positive and negative effects (legislators spending less time campaigning). Instead of concluding that not all legislators should spend less time campaigning, however, (D) only concludes that legislators’ current actions make sense. The stimulus, meanwhile, concludes that not everyone should perform an action instead of attempting to justify people’s current actions, so (D) doesn’t match.

Mismatched conclusion. (E) presents an action with both positive and negative effects (restricting land development). Instead of concluding that not all land development should be restricted, however, (E) concludes that it’s hard to know what decision to make. The stimulus, meanwhile, concludes that not everyone should perform an action instead of saying it’s hard to know what to do, so (E) doesn’t match.