(A) does establish two options: building a new primate house, and refurbishing the polar bear exhibit.

But (A) affirms one option (primate house) and concludes it can’t be the other (polar bear exhibit). This assumes we can’t do both options.

The stimulus’ flawed logic assumes the burglar must be one of the suspects, when in fact it could be neither. (A)’s flawed logic assumes the zoo must choose only one of the options, when in fact it could do both. Those two concepts are not the same.

(B) should fail your shallow dip when it uses “if, then” language. It should also be sus because of the subject matter overlap (both (B) and the stimulus talk about “suspects”), which is usually bait for people who don’t realize preserving subject matter is irrelevant in Parallel questions, which are all about structure.

Looking more closely, (B) does exhibit flawed reasoning, it’s just different flawed reasoning. Specifically, it confuses sufficiency for necessity and denies the sufficient condition:

Premise 1: Picked out of lineup → Reasonable to charge
Premise 2: /Picked out of lineup
________
Conclusion: /Reasonable to charge

Here are several small things that should make (C) seem sus on your shallow dip:

• If, then language in the first sentence.
• Comparison of how one option is worse than the other instead of just eliminating one option.
• Normative language (Iano should borrow money) in the conclusion.

These are all solid reasons to pass (C) over as you search for one that actually matches. They’re also arguably enough to make (C) wrong on their own.

But maybe you picked (C) because you thought there might be some way for Iano to compete without borrowing money. If that’s you, (C) is wrong because the first premise firmly establishes that there is no other option: Iano must either borrow money or be unable to compete.

Let’s plug (D) into the template we made in the analysis section:

Two Options: Evansville and Rivertown
Flaw: considering two cities doesn’t mean those are the only possible cities
Option 1: Baxim isn’t moving to Evansville
Option 2: Baxim will move to Rivertown

(E) is wrong because it actually establishes that there are only two viable options (Slater and Gonzales) whereas the stimulus left open the possibility of other options.

Aside: This alone doesn't make (E) wrong, but notice that (E) also introduces a flaw not present in the stimulus. There's a facts vs. beliefs difference between saying “Slater will not win” and saying “Political analysts believe Slater will not win.”

Let’s plug (D) into the template we made in the analysis section:

Two Options: Evansville and Rivertown
Flaw: considering two cities doesn’t mean those are the only possible cities
Option 1: Baxim isn’t moving to Evansville
Option 2: Baxim will move to Rivertown

(E) is wrong because it actually establishes that there are only two viable options (Slater and Gonzales) whereas the stimulus left open the possibility of other options.

Aside: This alone doesn't make (E) wrong, but notice that (E) also introduces a flaw not present in the stimulus. There's a facts vs. beliefs difference between saying “Slater will not win” and saying “Political analysts believe Slater will not win.”