Anyone able to spot trends (q) is able to distinguish the significant from insignificant (r).
q - > r
We can infer that:
IF historian THEN able to distinguish p -> r
C: Thus, anyone who can distinguish the significant from insignificant (r) is a historian (p).
r -> p
This is converse of p -> r and is never logically equivalent to the original statement, meaning the argument is flawed.
Now let's look at (A):
All expressions used for emotional impact (p) are expressions used by poets (q).
p -> q
All figures of speech (r) are expressions used for emotional impact (p)
r - >p
we can infer that:
r->p->q or r - > q
IF a figure of speech THEN used for emotional impact.
C: So any expression used by poets (q) is a figure of speech (r).
q - > r
This is again a converse of a properly inferred conclusion and is the same exact logical flaw as in the stimulus. Thus, (A) is the correct answer choice.
