This commits a correlation-causation fallacy. There are several plausible alternative explanations for the correlation. It’s possible that those with high incomes are more likely to invest in stocks. It’s also possible that a third factor—like financial savvy—causes one to both earn a higher income and invest more.

Wrong flaw. This doesn’t commit a correlation-causation fallacy because it directly establishes that in-house print shops usually enable efficiency. However, it assumes that efficiency is a goal of companies that produce publications. The stimulus assumes a particular causal relationship on the basis of a mere correlation.

Wrong flaw. This establishes an action (quitting smoking) that has two effects (lowering one’s premium and decreasing the risk of cancer) and assumes that lowering the incidence of one effect will lower the other. The stimulus assumes that a correlation implies a particular causation.

Wrong flaw. This uses a generalization to prescribe a particular action for any given large-estate manager. It neglects to consider other considerations that might dissuade one from getting a lawyer, such as cost. Regardless, the stimulus cites a correlation—not a generalization.

No flaw. If telemarketers target those who’ve purchased from them in the past, then it’s reasonable to conclude that those who wish to avoid receiving calls from telemarketers should not purchase from them.