Achieving one goal will, by implication, result in achieving another in this situation. If students understand the principles, there's at least some reason to think they'll apply them in everyday life. This parallels the implied causal link between goals in the stimulus.

Achieving one goal will, by implication, result in achieving another in this situation. If the customers are more satisfied, there’s at least some reason to think they’ll place fewer customer service calls. This parallels the implied causal link between goals in the stimulus.

Achieving one goal will, by implication, result in achieving another in this situation. If fewer books go unreturned, there’s at least some reason to think that more books will be returned on time. This parallels the implied causal link between goals in the stimulus.

This analysis isn’t airtight: e.g., it’s possible that the alternative to never returning books is late returns. But the reasoning in the stimulus has an analogous gap, so this is still a parallel.

Unlike the stimulus, there’s no clearly implied connection between the goals here. Why would building a new warehouse make employees more likely to help expand an old warehouse? If anything, getting more space from a new warehouse would make working to expand an old warehouse less appealing.

The mismatch here isn’t that one goal doesn’t have to lead to the other, which is also true of the stimulus. It’s that there no particular reason to suppose that one goal would lead to the other.

Achieving one goal will, by implication, result in achieving another in this situation. If the concert series provides different performances, there’s reason to suppose it will attract new attendees. This parallels the implied causal link between goals in the stimulus.