Mismatched premises and conclusion. (A) sets a conditional rule that has an “and” in the sufficient position (warm place and not protected), whereas the stimulus has the “and” in the necessary position, and then (A) tries to negate part of this sufficient (protected) to conclude that the necessary is negated (will not melt), but the stimulus negates a necessary conditions to conclude that its sufficient is also negated.

The argument sets two conditional rules (if passes inspection, then no sharp edges + sealed), and then negates one of these necessary conditions (not sealed) to conclude that the sufficient is also negated (will not pass inspection).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) sets a conditional rule that has an “and” in the sufficient position (fully graded and no big bumps), whereas the stimulus has an “and” in the necessary position. Then, (C) confirms the sufficient conditions to conclude the necessary is also true (accessible), but the stimulus negates one of its necessary conditions to conclude that the sufficient is also negated.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. These conditional rules are a good parallel for the stimulus, but then (D) tries to confirm the necessary conditions (adequately expresses meaning and gives idea of meter) to confirm the sufficient (accurate). The stimulus negates one of its necessary conditions to conclude that the sufficient is also negated.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. These conditional rules are a good parallel for the stimulus, but then (E) confirms one necessary to conclude that, as long as the other necessary is also confirmed, we may confirm the sufficient. The stimulus sets two conditional rules and then negates one of these necessary conditions to conclude that the sufficient is also negated.