Let’s break it down.
Stimulus reasoning:
* Premise: To be in the band → must practice hard **or** be talented.
* Case: Lily is in the band and is talented.
* Flawed conclusion: Therefore Lily does not practice hard.
The flaw: Misinterprets “or.” The condition allows **either or both**, but the argument assumes it must be **one or the other, not both**. This is a **false either-or** assumption.
Now compare options:
(A) Army needs good weather for mobility → Good weather today → Army will succeed.
Flaw: Confuses necessary with sufficient. Not the same flaw.
(B) If Lois on vacation → Chicago or Toronto. Lois not on vacation → not in either place.
Flaw: Denies the antecedent. Different error.
(C) Johnson wins only if neither Horan nor Jacobs run → Neither is running → Johnson will win.
Flaw: Again, confuses conditionals. Not the same.
(D) To stay informed → must read newspaper or watch news daily. Julie is informed and reads newspaper → Therefore she doesn’t watch TV.
Flaw: Exact same structure! Assumes if one condition is satisfied, the other cannot be.
(E) For Wayne’s ride → either Yvette or Marty must be there. Yvette not there → So Marty must be.
Flaw: Mistakes “or” as exclusive instead of inclusive. But here the logic is different: it’s about assuming the other must hold. Not the same structure.
Correct answer: D.