Critical Reasoning

A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity tours with playing tours led to problems, so she stopped combining the two. She no longer allows bookstore appearances and playing in competition to occur in the same city within the same trip. This week she is traveling to London to play in a major competition, so during her stay in London she will not be making any publicity appearances at any bookstore in London.
Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the passage?
(A) Wherever there is an Acme Bugkiller, many wasps are killed. The Z family garden has an Acme Bugkiller, so any wasps remaining in the garden will soon be killed.
(B) The only times that the hospital’s emergency room staff attends to relatively less serious emergencies are times when there is no critical emergency to attend to. On Monday night the emergency room staff attended to a series of fairly minor emergencies, so there must not have been any critical emergencies to take care of at the time.
(C) Tomato plants require hot summers to thrive. Farms in the cool summers of country Y probably do not have thriving tomato plants.
(D) Higher grades lead to better job opportunities, and studying leads to higher grades. Therefore, studying will lead to better job opportunities.
(E) Butter knives are not sharp. Q was not murdered with a sharp blade, so suspect X’s butter knife may have been the murder weapon.

IMO - B...What's the OA?

IMO B...OA please?

IMO- A
Reason- The conclusion in the argument is in future tense. The argument doesn't comment on something that has happened rather the it comments on something that will happen, same as "A".
Regards,
Mukherjee

Please share OA, as sharing OA is a good practice.

Do like me, if you find my explanation helpful.

I actually like when people don't put the OA - it generates a lot more discussion.

Anyway, let's diagram the original argument as generally as we can.

"At most one of A and B will happen. A is happening, therefore B will not happen."
or, alternatively,
"If A happens, then B does not happen. A happened, therefore B will not happen."

Now let's diagram the answers:

(A) If you have A, then you'll get B. This family has A, therefore they'll get B.
(B) A will happen only if B does not happen. A happened, therefore B did not happen.
(C) A needs B. This farm doesn't have B, so it probably doesn't have A.
(D) A leads to B and B leads to C. Therefore A leads to C.
(E) A is not B. Q was not B, therefore Q might have been A.

It isn't (A), (D), or (E): these all deal with one thing causing another to happen (our argument is about causing another NOT to happen) or with possibilities, not certainties.

Choosing between (B) and (C), I'd take (B): our original argument is about being forced to choose between one thing and another, which is absent in (C). (B) isn't _identical_ to the original -- it contains priorities (critical emergencies are more important than minor ones) -- but it's close enough, and we're only asked for the answer that "most closely parallels" the original.