Wrong flaw. This concludes that a person has a certain trait (Kao is a golfer) simply because most people in this person’s position share that trait (Kao is running for office and most people who run for office are golfers). The stimulus, meanwhile, concludes that someone is taking an action simply because they have a certain trait that’s necessary for that action.

Wrong flaw. This concludes that one candidate will lose simply because the opposing candidate is stronger in certain ways. (B) doesn’t rely on conditional logic. The stimulus, meanwhile, mistakes a trait that’s necessary for taking a certain action for a trait that’s sufficient for taking that action.

Wrong flaw. This confuses correlation and causation by arguing that someone must have caused a certain phenomenon simply because that phenomenon occurred as the person approached. The stimulus, meanwhile, confuses sufficient and necessary conditions by arguing that someone must be taking a certain action simply because he has a trait that’s necessary for taking that action.

The argument starts by concluding that someone must be taking an action (Thompson must be negotiating a loan). It supports this by saying that people who take that action share a necessary trait (anyone negotiating a loan goes to the bank), and this person has that trait (Thompson went to the bank). This commits the same sufficiency/necessity confusion. Going to the bank is necessary for negotiating a loan; just because Thompson went to the bank doesn’t guarantee that he’s negotiating a loan.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that someone definitely took a certain action simply because there’s no evidence to prove otherwise. The stimulus, meanwhile, assumes that someone must be taking a certain action simply because he has a trait that’s necessary for taking that action.