The argument sets a conditional rule (if mayor approves + city council approves, then gardens will open), and then confirms part of the sufficient (council approves) and negates the necessary (gardens not opening) to conclude that the remaining part of the sufficient (mayor approval) must not be fulfilled.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This sets a conditional (”If I see...”) and then triggers the sufficient (science fiction) but negates one of two options for the necessary (don’t hate it) to conclude that the other option will occur (love it). The stimulus sets a conditional rule, and then confirms part of the sufficient and negates the necessary to conclude that the remaining part of the sufficient must not be fulfilled.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) sets a conditional rule (”If the government...”), and then negates the necessary (economy did not improve) to conclude that the sufficient did not happen. The stimulus sets a conditional rule, and then confirms part of the sufficient and negates the necessary to conclude that the remaining part of the sufficient must not be fulfilled.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) sets a conditional (”Books at...”), then triggers the sufficient (on sale) and concludes that if one of the necessary options is not occurring (not paperback), then the other one will (it is a used book). The stimulus sets a conditional, and then confirms part of the sufficient and negates the necessary to conclude that the remaining part of the sufficient must not be fulfilled.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (E) sets a conditional (”If Doria...”), then triggers the sufficient (Doria owes) and negates one of the necessary options (does not want to be bankrupt) to conclude the other option (higher paying job) must happen. The stimulus sets a conditional rule, and then confirms part of the sufficient and negates the necessary to conclude that the remaining part of the sufficient must not be fulfilled.