Parallel reasoning. Strip the topic and write the original as a skeleton. Rule: if a store meets the target, then it is listed. Fact: the Fairview store was not listed. Conclusion: so the Fairview store did not meet the target. The valid move is denying the result to rule out the condition: every A leads to B; this case lacks B; therefore this case lacks A. The credited answer must reproduce this exact skeleton, regardless of subject matter.
(C) is correct. Rule: if an employee finishes the safety course, then the employee gets a permit. Fact: Reyes has no permit. Conclusion: so Reyes did not finish the course. This is the same skeleton, every A leads to B, no B here, therefore no A, so it is the structural twin even though the topic shifted from a grocery newsletter to a parking permit.
(A) shares the topic feel of access and credentials but uses a different move: it argues that sharing one feature with a group (carrying a permit) makes someone a member of the group. That is invalid and is not the original's form. It is the topic-match trap, attractive to anyone matching subject matter instead of structure.
(B) keeps the rule but runs it backward: it starts from having the permit and concludes the course was finished. The original starts from the missing result, not from having the result, and a permit could come from another source, so this reverses the direction.
(D) looks word-for-word like the original conclusion but weakens the rule from every to most. Under most, some who finished may lack a permit, so a missing permit no longer proves the course was not finished. One quantifier change breaks the deduction.
(E) negates the wrong part: it denies the condition (did not finish) and concludes the result is absent (no permit). The rule says nothing about people who did not finish, who could still get a permit another way, so this does not follow. It mirrors the original only on the surface.