If you disliked (A), it’s likely because you mixed up its premise / conclusion structure. (A)’s first sentence is its conclusion. Why? Because of how the second sentence starts:

This (you know, the sentence above) follows from the fact that…

The first sentence follows from the second. Yep.

With that sorted, (A) preserves the stimulus’ “whole-to-part” structure:

Premise: This whole system of lakes is [real pretty].
________
Conclusion: This little part of that system (Wooded Lake) is [real pretty].

(B) preserves the stimulus’ “whole-to-part” structure, but it should fail on your first shallow dip through the answer choices. Why? Because of the mismatch in logical strength between its likely conclusion and the stimulus’ certain conclusion. Matching logical strength is an absolute must in Parallel (and Parallel Flaw) questions – “likely” is enough to eliminate (B) all on its own.

But let’s trace (B)’s logic just for fun. As it happens, the likely conclusion makes the “whole-to-part” jump a lot more reasonable. First consider an alternate version of (B) that does match the stimulus’ structure:

HYPOTHETICAL CORRECT (B)
Premise: This was the coldest April in the last 50 years.
________
Conclusion: Any given day in April was the coldest day* in the last 50 years.

*“Day” here needs to mean “instance of that calendar date.” Like “April 15th was the coldest April 15th in the last 50 years.”

Anywho, that’s not what (B) says. The real (B) says any given day is likely to be [the coldest one in 50 years]. That’s a lot more reasonable. Whether it’s true or not depends on how exactly we define “the coldest April.”

Oh right, and (B) doesn’t even say “any given day is likely to be the coldest one in 50 years.” It says each day is likely to be unseasonably cold. That conceptual jump makes the conclusion a lot more reasonable as well, and it doesn’t occur in the stimulus.

Part of (C)’s allure is that it preserves the stimulus’ irrelevant context. If you want a deeper take on why the “it may not appear this way, but actually it is” element isn’t structurally relevant, review the lesson on context.

Aside from that, (C) doesn’t preserve the stimulus’ “whole-to-part” structure, mainly because both the premise and the conclusion apply to “every deck.” A matching version of (C) would look something like:

HYPOTHETICAL CORRECT (C)
Premise: This cruise ship as a whole houses some commercial cargo.
________
Conclusion: Every deck on this cruise ship (or even this particular deck) houses some commercial cargo.

(C) is really a test of whether you’ve proactively identified the part vs. whole flaw. Like you probably didn’t pick (C) because you were looking for the “whole-to-part” structure and thought you found it – you probably picked (C) because you were looking broadly for matchy stuff and (C) matched the stimulus’ context.

As a side note, another flaw (C) has going for it is the difference between houses some cargo and is devoted to housing cargo. Cool if you noticed that – it’s a real thing. That conceptual shift doesn’t happen in the stimulus, though, so it’s actually a reason to dislike (C).

If you’re looking for the “whole-to-part” structure, you can dismiss (D) without getting too far into the weeds because its core premise applies to parts:

Premise: Every person on the cleanup crew…

There’s also a huge gaping assumption in (D): did the accident happen in the grain area?

There’s no such assumption in the stimulus.

If you’re looking for the “whole-to-part” structure, you can dismiss (E) without getting too far into the weeds because it goes part-to-whole:

Premise: 2 of the 7 parts are unsafe.
________
Conclusion: The whole assembly is unsafe.

It’s also a lot more reasonable. As mentioned in a footnote to the analysis section, some characteristics do extend part-to-whole. Safety feels like one of them: if one part of your airplane is unsafe to use, for example, the whole airplane is probably also unsafe to use.

So yeah, (E) goes part-to-whole instead of whole-to-part, and it also involves a characteristic that much more reasonably extends across those two concepts.