bekhzod23 You have the general idea, but watch the details. The structure of the original argument is this:
If A, then B (To have life, you need water, so any time there is life, there is water.)
NOT B, therefore NOT A (There isn't water on P23, so there isn't life on P23)
Note that this is a VALID argument, not a flawed one. If we know A-->B, we also know NOT B--> NOT A. The argument gives us A-->B and NOT B, and them validly concludes NOT A.
C follows this same logical pattern, despite the difference of order:
Increasing, then buying. But not buying, so not increasing.
A quick way to eliminate A and B is that they are more complex than the original. A sets up TWO conditionals, and then draws an incorrect conclusion from their combination. B's conclusion is valid, but again it's based on combining two different premises. Also, B's premises are not actual conditionals. They are about what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be true, or what is PROBABLE, so B doesn't match C's focus on what MUST or MUST NOT be true.
D is a flawed argument relying on a classic reversal. Improving--> Increasing. Increasing, therefore Improving. We can't reverse a conditional like that! D would match the valid original if it said "NOT increasing, therefore NOT improving."
E is valid, but just follows the conditional in order. Exp down --> Def up. Exp are down, therefore Def is up. This doesn't rely on negation, so it doesn't have the same structure as the original.