Mismatched premises and conclusion. This has a conditional rule (If successful, then efficient employees) and adds another sufficient condition (modified; it only says “probably”) leading to efficient. The stimulus deals in two factors, not three.

(A) tries to conclude that one of the sufficient conditions (successful) leads to the other sufficient condition (knowledgeable and hardworking), which is invalid. The stimulus concludes that because one thing is untrue, another is untrue.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This has a conditional rule (if surprised, then guilt likelihood is low), but then uses a fact (flustered) as a possible trigger for the sufficient condition (surprise). The stimulus definitively negated a necessary condition (water) to contrapose and then, as their conclusion, definitively negate the sufficient (life).

The argument sets a conditional rule (If planning on increase, then buying equipment), and then negates the necessary condition (not buying) to conclude that the sufficient is untrue (not planning on increase).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This does have a conditional rule (if economy is improving, real estate price increasing), but it tries to confirm the necessary (price increasing) to conclude that the sufficient is true. This is invalid logic. The stimulus negates the necessary condition (water) to conclude that the sufficient is untrue (life).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This does have a conditional rule (if exports decrease, then deficit increases), but it confirms the sufficient (exports decreased) to conclude that the necessary is true (deficit increased). This is valid logic, but it isn’t what the stimulus does: the stimulus negates the necessary condition (water) to conclude that the sufficient is untrue (life).