Wrong flaw. This answer choice displays the cookie-cutter flaw of sufficiency-necessity confusion. The author of the stimulus instead drew a conclusion about a factor for which he provided no support in the premises.

Wrong flaw. This answer choice commits the cookie-cutter flaw of sufficiency-necessity confusion. The author of the stimulus, on the other hand, drew a conclusion about Frank’s innocence despite not providing any support for Frank being innocent in the premises.

This answer choice concludes that something didn’t actually happen based on premises about whether someone believes it happened. Just because Makoto doesn’t believe he left the oven on doesn’t mean he actually didn’t, just as the prosecutor not charging Frank with embezzlement does not mean he is innocent.

Wrong flaw. While this answer choice does equivocate between belief in something vs. that thing actually happening, like the stimulus does, the conditional structure of the answer choice does not match the stimulus. For this to match, Tamara would have had to not come in early.

Wrong flaw. This answer choice commits a similar error to the stimulus by equivocating between the belief that something will happen with whether or not it will happen. However, it does not follow the same conditional structure as the stimulus. For this to have matched, we would want this answer choice to say that Lucy did not come into work today, so she will be fired.