Mismatched premises. (A) presents a difference between two things (different pain ratings between two subjects) to conclude that they have a difference. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a similarity between two things, then an external difference that wasn’t accounted for, so (A) doesn’t match.

(B) presents a similarity between two things (two hamsters gaining the same amount of weight). It then presents an external difference not reflected in this similarity (one hamster eating more), to validly conclude that the two things have a difference (one hamster burns more calories).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) presents a difference between two things (Roland going faster coasting downhill than pedaling horizontally), then concludes that this difference could be made even bigger. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a similarity between two things, then a conclusion highlighting a difference, so (C) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises. (D) presents a difference between two things (two people judging antique values differently) to reach its conclusion. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a similarity between two things to reach its conclusion, so (D) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (E) gives us a single fact (Jean sees wells with glasses) to invalidly reach a conditional conclusion (if she didn’t have glasses, she wouldn’t be able to see as well). The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a similarity between two things, then a conclusion highlighting a difference, so (E) doesn’t match.