Wrong flaw. This supports a factual claim about the past with a premise that describes what most people believe. The stimulus supports a judgment about how a change was distributed with a premise that establishes a statistical average.

The assumes that a small change in average salary means there hasn’t been a big increase in the percentage of employees who earn high salaries. Since averages don’t necessarily tell us anything about how changes are distributed across individuals, it’s possible that the proportion of high-earners increased substantially despite the average not changing much.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that there hasn’t been a substantial number of new non-apartment buildings built in recent years. The stimulus improperly cites a change in an average to support a claim about how the change is distributed across individuals.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that a change in restaurant menus must cause a change in adults’ weights. Further, this uses a premise that describes a change in proportion to support a conclusion that an average has changed, whereas the stimulus does the inverse.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that a change in the proportion of income spent on housing must reflect a change in the average price of housing. The stimulus does the inverse, citing a change in the average to support a claim about proportion.