@JDR98 (A) doesn't actually make logical sense, whereas the original statement does. The original says that Carl stocks two decaf options. Yusef only serves decaf and the coffee last night was not French roast. If he gets it from Carl, it must be the other option.
(A) says Samuel has two options for car, a sedan and a convertible. The convertible has four seats, and the sedan has a more powerful engine. The conclusion that he'll take the convertible is unsupported because the argument says nothing about how many seats the sedan has. Therefore, since the argument in (A) is fallacious, it cannot have the same logical structure as the question, which is logically solid.
