Mismatched premises. (A) first presents a conditional statement as a fact (if the data are accurate, then the medication is safe). It then gives the presence of the sufficient condition as someone’s opinion. The stimulus, however, presents a conditional statement as an opinion before presenting the presence of the sufficient condition as a fact, so (A) is backward.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) presents a conditional relationship as a fact (if the data did not prove the medication is safe, then the journal would not conclude that it’s safe). It then draws a conclusion with a high degree of certainty (the data proves that the medicine is safe). The stimulus, meanwhile, presents a conditional statement as someone’s opinion, before concluding that something is probably true, so (B) doesn’t match.

The argument proceeds by presenting someone’s opinion in the form of a conditional statement (if the data provided are accurate, then the medicine is safe) and supporting the reliability of this opinion. It then concludes that the presence of the sufficient condition (the data being accurate) will probably lead to the necessary condition (the medication being safe).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) presents both a conditional statement (if the data are accurate, then the medication is safe) and the likely presence of the sufficient condition (the data probably being accurate) as an opinion. The stimulus, however, presents a conditional statement as an opinion and the presence of the sufficient condition as a fact, so (D) doesn’t match.

Mismatched premises. (E) only presents us with facts, and no conditional statements. The stimulus, however, bases its conclusion on a conditional statement, so (E) doesn’t match.