The stimulus uses correct Conditional reasoning.
Premise: If two-point conversion, then behind (If reason, then result)
If NOT behind, then NOT two-point conversion. (If NOT result, then NOT reason)
Conclusion: The Bears NOT behind, thus NOT two-point conversion (If NOT result, then NOT reason)
As we see the conclusion matches the above reasoning, and we need to find similar conditional reasoning and matching conclusion.
A. Premise: If policy, then incident (If reason, then result)
If NOT incident, then NOT policy (If NOT result, then NOT reason)
Conclusion: NOT incident, thus NOT policy (If NOT result, then NOT reason)
Correct match as in the stimulus. So keep.
B. If supersale, then bade sale
If NOT bad sale, then NOT supersale
Conclusion: NOT supersale, thus NOT bad sale.
Conclusion mismatch because of mistaken negation, thus out.
C. If suspect, then pop-quiz
If NOT pop-quiz, then NOT suspect
Conclusion: pop-quiz, thus suspect
Conclusion mismatch because of mistaken reversal, thus out.
D. If exceed, then NOT participate
If participate, then NOT exceeded
Conclusion: exceed, thus NOT
Correct match as in the stimulus. So keep.
E. If exceed, then buy
If NOT buy, then NOT exceed
Conclusion: NOT exceed, thus NOT buy
Conclusion mismatch because of mistaken negation, thus out.
We have A and D as contenders. I chose A over D because A’s conclusion is parallel to the Contrapositive of its premise, as it's in the stimuslus. However, D’s conclusion is parallel to its stimulus itself, not to its contrapostive.
One more hint: Notice that D and the original argument have too much in common!
1. both have the same topic –
sport2. both use the same words –
upcoming, and (at the same places)
3. both have the same structure:
Conclusion + premise + evidenceAll of these similarities should make us suspicious! D is a trap! It’s too beautiful to be true! So something must be wrong with it! Indeed, however much D may look like the original argument, D still lacks parallel reasoning.
Hence
A