This is a parallel-reasoning question, so strip the topic away and write the original as a bare skeleton. Rule: if a store meets the target, then it is listed. Fact: the Fairview store was not listed. Conclusion: the Fairview store did not meet the target. The valid move here 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: Reyes did not finish the course. This is the same skeleton, every A leads to B, this case lacks B, therefore this case lacks A, so it is the structural twin of the original even though the topic shifted from a grocery newsletter to a parking permit.
(A) has the same three-part look, a rule, a fact about a named person, a conclusion, but uses a different move: it argues that sharing one feature with a group, namely carrying a permit, makes someone a member of that group. That move affirms a present feature, which is invalid, while the original denies a missing result. It is a shape-match trap, attractive to anyone matching the surface layout of rule plus fact plus conclusion instead of the 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 a missing result, not from a present one, and a permit could come from another source, so this reverses the direction.
(D) looks word for word like the original's conclusion but weakens the rule from every to most. Under most, some employees who finished the course may still 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, saying the person did not finish, and concludes the result is absent, no permit. The rule says nothing about people who did not finish; they could still get a permit some other way, so this conclusion does not follow. It mirrors the original only on the surface.