The argument begins by comparing sets, showing that one set has the most of something (among all sports, soccer has the most leg injuries). Then it compares members of that set (among all soccer players, Linda has had the most leg injuries). Finally, it concludes by comparing a member of that set to members of other sets (among all athletes, Linda has had the most leg injuries). This is the same whole-to-part flaw. Just because soccer has the most leg injuries doesn’t mean a soccer player has more than any other athlete.

Wrong flaw. This starts by comparing sets (schools) and then notes that one member of a set (Janna) has the most awards of any member of any of the sets. It then compares Janna to the other members of her set, concluding that she is the best. The stimulus, meanwhile, compares sets, then compares one member of a set to other members of that same set, and then shifts to a conclusion that compares members across different sets.

No flaw. This establishes that Olson makes the three best-selling models in the country. If the Decade is Olson’s best-selling model, then it must also be the best-selling model in the country (since Olson makes the best-selling models in the country).

Wrong flaw. This starts by comparing individual members across two sets (the highest- and lowest-paid police officers and the highest-and lowest-paid firefighters). It then shifts to a conclusion about the sets as a whole (police officers earn more, on average, than firefighters). (D) draws a conclusion about the whole from an argument about individual parts, while the stimulus draws a conclusion about a part from an argument about the whole.

Wrong flaw. This starts by comparing one member of a set (Falling Fast) to other members of that same set (other films). It then draws a conclusion about that member based on a general characteristic of the most successful films. This assumes that the film earning most at the box office is also the most successful film. The stimulus, meanwhile, starts by comparing multiple sets and then draws a conclusion that compares an individual member of one set to members of all the sets.