Mismatched conclusion. (B) presents a conditional chain (Thrives→Adaptable→Adversely Affect). It then validly concludes that the absence of the third variable (Not Adversely Affect) leads to the absence of the second variable (Not adaptable). The stimulus, however, concludes that the absence of the third variable in a conditional chain leads to the absence of the first variable, so (B) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) presents a conditional statement that translates to, “If a species is introduced into a new environment and adversely affects some of the existing species, then it adapts well to that environment.” It then validly concludes that the absence of the necessary condition (It doesn’t adapt well) leads to the absence of part of the sufficient condition (It will not adversely affect any species). The stimulus, however, concludes that the absence of the third variable in a conditional chain leads to the absence of the first variable, so (C) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) presents a conditional statement (If a new species would hurt the existing species in an environment, then the new species shouldn’t be introduced). It then concludes that the sufficient condition probably leads to the sufficient condition. The stimulus, however, concludes that the absence of the third variable in a conditional chain leads to the absence of the first variable, so (D) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (E) presents two conditional statements: “If a new species would hurt the environment, then it shouldn’t be introduced,” and “If a new species is introduced, then this risk can be reduced through population control.” It then invalidly brings up the new concept of whether the population should be controlled in the conclusion. The stimulus, however, concludes that the absence of the third variable in a conditional chain leads to the absence of the first variable, so (E) doesn’t match.