Mismatched premises and conclusion. (A) does not have any conditional, unlike the stimulus. (A) is eliminating one option (customers unsatisfied) to confirm the other (strong competition), but the stimulus does not confirm something due to an alternative reason not being true.

Also, (A) is a false dichotomy because we don’t know that these are the only two options.

The argument has one sufficient condition (if cafe closes) leading to two necessary conditions (strong competition, customers unsatisfied). Then, the author states that the sufficient was triggered (cafe closed) to conclude that one of the necessary conditions occurred (strong competition).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) sets a conditional (if cafe closes, then strong competition) to conclude that something else outside of the conditional wasn’t occurring (customer base unsatisfied). The stimulus triggers a sufficient condition to conclude that one of its necessary conditions has occurred.

Also, (C) is flawed in general, because both of these things could be happening

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) uses a conditional, but the “and” portion is in the sufficient condition, whereas the stimulus has “and” in the necessary condition. Then, it confirms the necessary (cafe closed) to say that the sufficient condition may have occurred. This is invalid, and different than the stimulus, which uses the trigger of a sufficient to conclude that one of its two necessary conditions has also occurred.

Mismatched premise and conclusion. (E) has the same conditional setup as the stimulus: one sufficient condition (if cafe stays open) leading to two necessary conditions (lack of competition, satisfied customers). But then, (E) negates both necessary conditions to conclude that the sufficient was unachievable. The stimulus triggers the sufficient to confirm one of the necessary conditions.