✅ This is a direct deduction based on the principles of deductive logic. The first premise establishes a universal truth: every person who completed the survey received a prize. The second premise places Sarah into this group (she completed the survey).

❌ Option B is an invalid conversion; "All A are B" does not mean "Only B are A" or "All B are A." There might be other ways to receive a prize not related to the survey.

❌ Option C directly contradicts the first premise, which clearly states that ALL participants who completed the survey received a prize.

❌ Option D is also an invalid conversion, similar to option B. It suggests that completing the survey is the exclusive condition for receiving a prize, which is not supported by the given statements.

✅ Option C is correct because deductive logic demands that the conclusion *must* be true if the premises are true, without relying on any outside information.

The premises only establish that dogs are a subset of mammals and your pet is a mammal; therefore, your pet *might* be a dog, but it could also be any other type of mammal, such as a cat, a human, or a horse.

❌ Option A commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (If P then Q; Q; Therefore P), where meeting a characteristic (being a mammal) does not guarantee belonging to the specific group (dogs) that exhibits that characteristic.

❌ Option B is not a necessary conclusion because the premises provide no information about cats or their relation to your pet, beyond both being mammals.

❌ Option D is an invalid conversion of the first premise; "All dogs are mammals" does not logically imply that "All mammals are dogs," which is a false statement.

✅ A valid deductive argument is characterized by the logical necessity of its conclusion: if all its premises are true, the conclusion cannot possibly be false. The truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

❌ B describes inductive reasoning, where conclusions are probable but not certain, even if the premises are true.

❌ C describes inductive reasoning, which moves from specific observations to broader generalizations or new theories.

❌ D relates to the persuasiveness or soundness (truth of premises) of an argument, but not the specific characteristic of its deductive validity, which is about the logical structure connecting premises to conclusion.

✅ A valid deductive argument is characterized by the logical necessity of its conclusion. If the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion cannot possibly be false.

❌ Option A describes a strong inductive argument, where the conclusion is likely but not guaranteed.

❌ Option B focuses on the empirical truth of premises, which relates to the soundness of an argument, not its validity. Validity is a structural property, independent of the actual truth of premises.

❌ Option D describes inductive reasoning, which generalizes from specific instances, rather than deductive reasoning, which guarantees a conclusion from general premises.

✅ In a valid deductive argument, the logical structure guarantees that if all the premises are true, the conclusion *must* necessarily be true. This absolute certainty about the conclusion, given true premises, is the defining characteristic of deductive validity.

❌ Option A describes inductive reasoning, where conclusions are only probable, not guaranteed, even with true premises.

❌ Option C is characteristic of inductive arguments, which aim to expand knowledge beyond the information given in the premises; deductive arguments merely make explicit what is implicit.

❌ Option D is less direct because an argument that is valid with all true premises is, by definition, a sound argument, meaning its conclusion is already guaranteed to be true under the given conditions.