There’s no false dichotomy in (A). The dichotomy in question here is between can be an officer and cannot be an officer. That’s a legit dichotomy.

Plenty of other similarities, though. Look at those three necessary conditions. Look how (A) argues someone doesn’t count as [thing] because they don’t fulfill the requirements of [thing].

While (B) features two ideas that are not a true dichotomy, the argument doesn’t treat them like a dichotomy. Lemme break that down a bit.

The best defense of (B) is that it creates a false dichotomy between Thrive and is not as healthy as it should be. Treating those concepts as a dichotomy, you might argue, assumes all plants should be thriving (i.e. any non-thriving plant isn’t as healthy as it should be).

Two responses there – a vibes one and a technical one. From a vibes perspective, we’re just looking for a more extreme false dichotomy. For (B) to match the stimulus’ friend/enemy dichotomy, really we want it to say “my plant isn’t thriving; therefore it’s DEAD.”

From a technical perspective, (B) doesn’t actually follow the reasoning “since my plant is not thriving, it is therefore not as healthy as it should be.” Instead, it concludes that this gardener’s various failings (not sunny; no water) provide a causal explanation for the fact that their plant is not as healthy as it should be. That causal relationship is the conclusion, and the fact that the plant isn’t healthy is actually a premise.

(C) features a false dichotomy between Love and Hostility – it assumes that since no one was hostile to the book, they must therefore have loved it. But maybe the critics felt “meh” about it. Maybe they thought it was mediocre. Other attitudes exist.

(C) notably does not mirror many of the stimulus’ other structural elements. And that’s an important lesson to take away – in Parallel Flaw questions, it’s sometimes enough to preserve the flaw without matching the whole structure. Notice I say “sometimes,” though. As mentioned in the analysis, sometimes two (or more) answers will preserve the flaw and you do need to decide between them based on how well they match the stimulus' structure. Ahh the LSAT. What a joy.

First off, there’s no false dichotomy in (D). The dichotomy in question here would be… I don’t even know what it would be. I guess (D) is saying there are four equally worthy options, so any reason you might use to argue for one of them applies to all of them. Which… that’s just a different argument pattern altogether from that in the stimulus.

Anyway, the word possible in (D)’s conclusion should also be a red flag, because the stimulus’ conclusion is certain (he is my enemy).

First off, there’s no false dichotomy in (E). The dichotomy in question is between will come crashing to a halt and will not come crashing to a halt. That’s a legit dichotomy right there.

Aside from that, though, (E) also confuses sufficiency and necessity – it establishes some sufficient conditions for a certain outcome…

Everyone is an author, poet, or academic → Society Crash

…then negates those sufficient conditions to conclude society won’t crash.

Oh also, the word most is sus too – it’s a specific quantifier that significantly weakens the argument and doesn’t appear in the stimulus.