Top Law Schools

I know that someone (clint4law) already has a post about this particular question. However, even after reviewing the responses on that thread, I unfortunately am not 100% comfortable with this question. So I would sincerely appreciate any elaboration on the logic of the passage itself and specifically why D is the correct anwer as well as why the other answer choices are incorrect.

As I understand the passage, it gives the following two primeses and conclusion:
(S = support tax, E = have a chance of election, U = understand economics)

Premise 1. S --> not E ( = E --> not S)
Premise 2. U --> not S ( = S --> not U)
Concl. E --> U ( = not U --> not E)

The question asks about the flaw in the reasoning.

I would love to have your input on why D is the correct answer, and why A, B, E and especially C are all incorrect.

Thank you, in advance!

I'm pretty sure the question you are referring to isn't PT 10 section 4 question 9.

Bro what are you talking about? PT 10 Section 4 Question 9 is about the carpet markets.

ah! yes, sorry about that (wrote the post right before bed)...
it's PT 14 (section 4, question 9)

premises

supports tax law -> no chance of being elected.
understands econ -> not support tax law

conclusion

chance of being elected -> understands econ

i don't know what you would call this error (mistaken reversal, mistaken negation) but

a. not possible according to the premise 2
b. beyond scope
c. restatement of premise 1
d. imagines a possibility where you can get elected since you do not support the tax law but do not understand econ which the premises allow for.
e. beyond scope