Explanation

Let's diagram the stimulus first. No projects that involve historical restorations (HR) were granted building permits (GP) this month. HR ==> not GP Some of the current projects of the firm S&S are historical restorations. S&S-some-HR Therefore, at least some of S&S's projects were not granted building permits this month. This is a valid conclusion that can be drawn by combining the first two premises in a transitive formation, as follows: S&S-some-HR ==> not GP Therefore: S&S-some-not GP Answer choice (D) is identical, although the order of the premises is different. I am going to rearrange them so you can see the logical structure is identical: None of the films released this season (RTS) were enthusiastically reviewed (ER). RTS ==> not ER. Several films directed by Hannah Barker (HBF) were released this season. "Several" is diagrammed as "some." HBF-some-RTS Now, combine these two premises in a transitive formation, as follows: HBF-some-RTS ==> not ER Therefore: HBF-some-not ER. That is identical to the stimulus. Hope this helps!