Hi Beth,
If you're a FL LSAT course student, the approach to Parallel Reasoning questions is explained in Lesson 8. Also, please make sure to watch the virtual modules on this topic before delving into the homework.
Essentially, to parallel the reasoning in the stimulus you need to first understand exactly how the reasoning proceeds. The question you're asking about contains an argument using conditional reasoning, which can be diagrammed as follows:
- Premise: Volleyball
Sunburned
Premise: At work today NOT Sunburned
------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: At work today NOT volleyball
The reasoning is logically valid. After taking the contrapositive of the first premise, we arrive at the following chain, which justifies the conclusion reached:
- At work today NOT Sunburned NOT volleyball
So, we are looking for an argument in which the conclusion is deductively valid and provable as a transitive inference from a conditional chain relationship.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because the premise talks about TRF workers who were given the opportunity to purchase dental insurance, whereas the conclusion refers to everyone who is employed at TRF. The conclusion expands the scope of the argument beyond what is warranted by the premises.
Answer choice (B) - you should keep this as a contender, as it exhibits at least some of the elements we're looking for. Upon a second look, you should realize that this answer choice contains a Mistaken Negation:
- Premise: Promoted Attend
Premise: Manager NOT Promoted
------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Manager NOT Attend
Answer choice (C) is incorrect right off the bat. Having a reputation for getting assignments in on time has no bearing on the conclusion.
Answer choice (D) is the correct answer choice, and can be diagrammed as follows:
- Premise: 2nd floor office Work for Pres
Premise: Work for Pres NO time off
------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: 2nd floor office NO time off/list]
Since the conclusion is a logically valid transitive inference from the chain relationship established by the premises, it is correct.
Answer choice (E) can be eliminated relatively quickly, because the language used in the conclusion ("likely") does not match the certainty of the conclusion in the original argument. Furthermore, there is only one premise here, not two.
Hope this helps! 
