Mismatched premises and conclusion. (A) has a part-to-whole flaw. It concludes that a whole (a machine) will have a certain trait (being high quality) because all of its parts have that trait. The stimulus, however, compares two groups based on samples from those groups, so (A) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) attempts to present the conditional chain Carelessly Treated→Blight→Likely to Die before concluding that the first variable leads to the last variable. (The middle variable does not fully match between the two statements, but this is the chain the argument is trying to make). The stimulus does not use conditional reasoning, however, and instead compares two groups based on samples from those groups.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) presents a single set of experiments to support a causal conclusion. The stimulus, however, compares two groups based on samples from those groups, so (C) doesn’t match.

The argument proceeds by comparing two groups (the Liberal and Conservative parties). It concludes that the entirety of one group has more of a certain trait (supporters of Pollack) because a sample of that group has more of that trait.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (E) presents the conditional chain of Livestock→Registered→Not Free-Range, then validly concludes that the first variable leads to the last variable. The stimulus does not use conditional reasoning, however, and instead compares two groups based on samples from those groups.