This commits a whole-to-part fallacy. It assumes that because a whole (the system of interconnected lakes) has a particular trait (one of the most beautiful in the world), a part of that whole (Wooded Lake) must also have that trait.

No flaw. This doesn’t assume that any given day was “one of the coldest in the last half-century”, but rather, that it was merely “unseasonably cold”. This isn’t a whole-to-part fallacy because the argument doesn’t assume that each part has the same trait as the whole. Further, the conclusion is that any given day was likely to have been unseasonably cold, which is a more reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that the month was exceptionally cold.

Wrong flaw. This appeals to the ship’s manifest for evidence; it doesn’t simply assume that a part has the same trait as the whole. It’s flawed in assuming that the manifest is accurate and in assuming that a deck is devoted to cargo storage merely because it has some cargo on it.

Wrong flaw. This compares claims from two different sources (Hopper versus the company records) and assumes that one of them is correct. The stimulus doesn’t compare claims—it commits a whole-to-part fallacy.

Wrong flaw. This provides evidence about the parts of an assembly to draw a conclusion about the whole, while the stimulus provides evidence about the whole to draw a conclusion about a part. Further, (E) jumps to a prescriptive conclusion (it ought to be repaired), whereas the stimulus is merely descriptive.