Not all tenured faculty are full professors. Therefore, although every

The flawed pattern of reasoning exhibited by the argument is most similar to option (C) - "Although some buildings designed by famous architects are not well proportioned, all government buildings are designed by famous architects. Therefore, some government buildings are not well proportioned."

Just as the argument in option (C) assumes that all government buildings must be designed by famous architects and therefore some of them must be poorly designed, the argument in the given statement assumes that all tenured faculty must be full professors and therefore some faculty members in the linguistics department must not be full professors.

However, both arguments overlook the possibility that the premises may not be universally true and there may be exceptions to the generalization. In the given statement, it is possible that some tenured faculty members are not full professors, but all faculty members in the linguistics department happen to be full professors. Thus, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Similarly, in option (C), it is possible that not all government buildings are designed by famous architects, or that all government buildings designed by famous architects are well-proportioned.

Not all tenured faculty are full professors. Therefore, although every faculty member in the linguistics department has tenure, it must be the case that not all of the faculty members in the linguistics department are full professors.

The flawed pattern of reasoning exhibited by the argument above is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?

(A) Although all modern office towers are climate-controlled buildings, not all office buildings are climate-controlled. Therefore, it must be the case that not all office buildings are modern office towers. - WRONG. "modern office towers" and "climate-controlled buildings" are two sets. "office buildings" is another set which has a subset "modern office towers". And conclusion is not flawed.

(B) All municipal hospital buildings are massive, but not all municipal hospital buildings are forbidding in appearance. Therefore, massive buildings need not present a forbidding appearance. - WRONG. "massive municipal hospital buildings" and "forbidding in appearance" are two sets. But "massive buildings" ≠ "massive municipal hospital buildings" as latter might be a subset of former. Thus, conclusion is not necessarily true as "massive municipal hospital buildings need not present a forbidding appearance" can be true. However, it is again not necessarily true.

(C) Although some buildings designed by famous architects are not well proportioned, all government buildings are designed by famous architects. Therefore, some government buildings are not well proportioned. - CORRECT. "buildings designed by famous architects" and "well proportioned" are two sets that overlap(possibility of one being subset of another is there). "government buildings" is another set, rather a subset of "buildings designed by famous architects". But "government buildings" may or may not be a subset of "well proportioned".

(D) Not all public buildings are well designed, but some poorly designed public buildings were originally intended for private use. Therefore, the poorly designed public buildings were all originally designed for private use. - WRONG. Is "Public buildings not being well designed" = "poorly designed public buildings"? "poorly designed public buildings" is a subset of "private use". But conclusion is a not necessarily true.

(E) Although some cathedrals are not built of stone, every cathedral is impressive. Therefore, buildings can be impressive even though they are not built of stone - WRONG. Stone and impressive are two sets wherein stone is a subset of impressive. But the conclusion is just a rephrase to previous sentence.

As per passage TF and FP are two different sets that merge i.e. someTF are nFP. As of now we don't know which set is bigger relative to other. As we proceed further in the passage we see that it is concluded that someTF_l ≠ FP. So, what might be wrong with this.
One that it possible that allTF_l = FP
Second that noneTF_l = FP
Third that someTF_l ≠ FP as is concluded. We can also say that someTF_l = FP but that would go beyond the scope of the passage as many possibilities exists.
Hence this is just a not necessary situation as far as conclusion is concerned. Here TF is a subset of FP, however, how, it depends on the further assumptions we make. But that is not our concern.

A is easy eliminated. D and E are concluded in plain rephrases. It is between B and C for me. B loses slightly for making conclusion with sets not equivalent to passage.

Answer C.