Mismatched premises and conclusion. (A) is structurally similar, but it fails in the specifics: (A) is not giving conditionals like the stimulus did, because they have been modified by “generally” in each instance. Also, the conclusion of (A) is “never,” but the conclusion of the stimulus says “unlikely.”

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) does not have any conditional reasoning, whereas the stimulus has two in its support. (B) is saying that historians will probably feel like X, so they probably won’t accomplish Y. The stimulus claims that because most people cannot satisfy the two different requirements for two different jobs, there is unlikely to be overlap in high success between the two jobs.

Mismatched premise and conclusion. (C) describes qualities of painters (biased, cannot be objective scholars) and uses this to conclude a limitation of painters (cannot be good scholars of painting). In the stimulus, it is due to an absence of a quality (detailed work or larger picture) that limits the people, rather than due to presence of a quality.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) creates a chain with set relationships and conditions (most people don’t have motivation for knowledge required to become successful specialist) to conclude that most people are unlikely to be specialists. The stimulus does not have a chain in this way.

The stimulus is comparing requirements of two groups to conclude the unlikely overlap in success between the two. (D) Is only focusing on one group (specialists)

(E) concludes that there is unlikely to be overlap in excelling at two different sports, because most people don’t have the necessary condition for both.