Mismatched premise. (A) has a conclusion that something should happen (applicant demonstrates X and is aware of Y) and tells us the consequence if this doesn’t happen, but it does not have an example of this consequence, like the stimulus does.

Mismatched premise. (C) has a conclusion that something should happen (processed at each frontier) and tells us the consequence if this doesn’t happen, but it does not have an example of this consequence, like the stimulus does. Additionally, (C)’s support of “The inconvenience this might cause...” is something that the stimulus does not have a parallel for.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) has a conclusion that something should happen (studying ethics) like the stimulus, but it tells the the benefits of this recommendation, whereas the stimulus’ support is through illustrating the consequence if we don’t abide by the recommendation.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (E) has a conclusion that something should happen (info recorded on toy) like the stimulus, but there are two issues:

1. It is missing an example of the consequence of not following the recommendation, which the stimulus has.
   
2. The consequence that (D) tells us is not a definite consequence; it is modified by an “if,” meaning, this consequence is only an issue if the information is recorded on the package only. This condition is not put on the consequence in the stimulus.