Explanation
The statement presents a logical argument that implies a direct causation: if a vehicle is well-maintained, then it will have a high resale value. The flaw in this argument is the converse. The phrasing hides the ball a little with the conditions, but only refers to vehicles that are well maintained. Therefore we can summarize the converse as: if a vehicle has high resale value it is well-maintained, which is a converse (mistaken reversal) flaw.
A. This choice misses the mark. Just because a plant hasn’t been pruned doesn’t it doesn’t need pruning. I skip breakfast, that doesn’t mean I don’t need breakfast.
B. This choice does not reflect the same logical structure as the original statement. It incorrectly assumes a direct inverse relationship between the quality of mediators and their track records, which is not analogous to the original argument about a single condition guaranteeing an outcome.
C. While it addresses desire and outcome, it does not match the flaw in the original argument, which assumes a single factor guarantees a particular result.
D. (Correct Response) This is the same type of converse flaw. If you’re a city dweller you prefer waterfalls, but just because you prefer waterfalls to traffic jams doesn’t make you a city dweller.
E. This option makes an absolute statement about the lack of need for medical care if one's health is excellent, which is not directly parallel to the flawed assumption in the vehicle argument.