No flaw. This establishes that entries must be postmarked by March 21st in order to be accepted, so it properly concludes that an entry postmarked after that date will not be accepted.

Wrong flaw. This provides a conjunctive sufficient condition, meaning that two things must be true in order for an outcome to be ensured (one’s kitchen must be well organized and one must be a good cook). It then assumes that a certain one of those conditions must not have been met since the outcome wasn’t. The stimulus provides two independent sufficient conditions and mistakes them for necessary ones.

This mistakes sufficient conditions for necessary ones. Both quitting smoking and exercising daily are sufficient for Bob to improve his fitness level, but they aren’t established as the only ways he can. There could be other ways for him to improve his fitness level.

Wrong flaw. This provides evidence concerning what police are allowed to do yet draws a conclusion about what they actually will do. The stimulus, in contrast, mistakes sufficient conditions for necessary ones.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that there must be overlap between two subgroups (dogs that respond to basic commands and dogs that perform advanced tricks). The stimulus doesn’t deal in subgroups—it mistakes sufficient conditions for necessary ones.