Summary
If you have no keyboarding skills, then you will not be able to use a computer. If you are not able to use a computer, then you will not be able to use a word processing program to write your essays.
Notable Valid Inferences
If you are able to use a word processing program to write your essays, then you have keyboarding skills.
A
If you have some keyboarding skills, you will be able to write your essays using a word processing program.
Could be false. We don’t have any conditional statements in the stimulus to tell us what occurs when a person does have keyboarding skills. Our first conditional statement tells us what occurs when a person does not have keyboarding skills.
B
If you are not able to write your essays using a word processing program, you have no keyboarding skills.
Could be false. We don’t have any conditional statements in the stimulus to tell us what occurs when a person is not able to use a word processing program. Not being able to use a word processing program is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition.
C
If you are able to write your essays using a word processing program, you have at least some keyboarding skills.
Must be true. As shown below, this answer choice is the correct contrapositive of our conditional chain. 
D
If you are able to use a computer, you will probably be able to write your essays using a word processing program.
Could be false. The only statement we could infer if a person can use a computer is that that person has keyboarding skills. This answer choice is an incorrect contrapositive.
E
If you are not able to write your essays using a word processing program, you are not able to use a computer.
Could be false. We don’t have any conditional statements in the stimulus to tell us what occurs when a person is not able to use a word processing program. Not being able to use a word processing program is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition.
Smith: Granted, children’s interests are not always the same as their parents’; governmental deficits incurred by their parents’ generation will later affect their own generation’s standard of living. But even if children are told about the issues affecting them, which is not generally the case, their conceptions of what can or should be done are too simple, and their time horizons are radically different from those of adults, so we cannot give them the responsibility of voting.
Summarize Argument
Rossi claims that children should have the right to vote. To support this conclusion, Rossi states a principle that it is undemocratic for anyone to live under a government that doesn’t represent their interests. According to Rossi, children’s interests can differ from their parents’ interests—presumably making it undemocratic to ban children from voting.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Rossi’s argument starts with the general principle that it’s undemocratic not to represent citizens’ interests. Rossi then points out a particular case where that principle is violated: children’s interests aren’t always represented by their parents. Based on this, Rossi concludes that we should change our system so the principle is respected, by allowing children to vote.
A
It makes an appeal to a general principle.
Rossi appeals to the general principle that it’s undemocratic for a government not to represent the interests of all those living under it. The apparent violation of this principle leads to Rossi’s conclusion that children should get to vote.
B
It denies the good faith of an opponent.
Rossi doesn’t mention any opponents, and isn’t directly responding to another argument. There’s no issue of good faith here.
C
It relies on evaluating the predictable consequences of a proposal.
Rossi doesn’t address any predictable consequences of the proposal to allow children to vote (or of any other proposal).
D
It substitutes description for giving a rationale for a policy.
Rossi does give a rational for the proposed policy of allowing children to vote: that it would make society more democratic.
E
It employs a term on two different occasions in different senses.
There’s no term that Rossi uses to mean two different things on two different occasions. All the terms in Rossi’s argument appear to mean the same thing every time they’re used.