Mismatched premises and conclusion. For the premise, this only has one person doing a potentially damaging action, whereas the stimulus had two people, and (A) did not result in actual damage. For the conclusion, (A) does not have Laura performing an action as compensation, whereas the stimulus has John performing chores as compensation.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) does not have anyone participating in reckless activity (on the contrary, they were being careful), and it concludes in the supposedly harmed party (Gerald) compensating the other two people, whereas the stimulus has one of the two people compensating the third party.

This argument uses the same implicit rule as the stimulus (the person whose action directly led to damage is solely responsible for compensation) and applies it to a situation (two people involved in reckless activity, Chris caused damage) to determine that one person is responsible for damage compensation.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This has a fourth person responsible for the damage (previous renter) that does not exist in the stimulus, whereas in the stimulus one of the two people being reckless is responsible for the damage. Additionally, the conclusion assigns responsibility to the boat owner, but the stimulus assigns responsibility to the person whose action led directly to the damage.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This has two people involved in reckless activity, but it does not have a damaging action committed by only one person (e.g. John threw the ball that broke the window). Also, (E) concludes in an inability to hold someone responsible, whereas the stimulus concludes in being able to hold someone responsible.