If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.

Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?

A. If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.
B. If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an all-expenses-paid vacation. Joe earned an all-expense-paid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year.
C. A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads.
D. If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship.
E. All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team.

Tough Question - Justify response Please

IMO A

As explained above OA is A

the problem with C is that both parts of sentence are 'if' conditions.
if circulation > 10000 -> 50% premium
if circulation < 10000 -> no premium
the option doesnt give an instance of the condition not being met

whereas
the stimulus specifies a condition and uses that condition to arrive at a conclusion about an instance in which the condition is not met.

The reasoning in the argument is of the following form:
If X --> then Y.
If negative Y --> then negative X

Only option A is of this form.

Reasoning in the stem: if X -------> then Y
if Y'--------> then X' must have had happened.
This line of reasoning is closest , though not similar,to A.
A says:
If P------>then Q
If Q------>, then P must have had happened.
Hope its clear.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting