Which one of the following, if true, would most clearly support the argument made in passage B?

on July 3, 2018

Question makes no sense

This question is based completely off of a subjective form of arbitrary inferring rather than concrete evidence. There is no place in the text where the material indicates a chef's willingness or reluctance in sharing information with known offenders of the social norm. If anyone could help me understand this it would be much appreciated.


on July 3, 2018

In addition there is no consequence mentioned for violators in contrast to passage A, eliminating any incentive, which would eliminate the thought to which Chef's would be hesitant in protecting information.

Christopher on July 6, 2018

@mws7129, the argument in passage B is essentially that since there are no viable legal ways of preventing or punishing recipe theft, chefs depend on "three implicit social norms" to govern themselves. The question is asking which of the answer choices "if true" would best support this argument. So the correct answer does not need to have been mentioned in the passage but only lend support to the conclusion of the argument. Since the argument is that Chefs are governed by a series of social norms, having evidence that chefs punish violators by refusing to share information would fit within the argument as a premise in support of the main conclusion.

These are tricky because they're asking for a different type of answer than normal. You're not looking for a "must be true" answer as you often are in RC passages. Rather, you're looking for a premise that will fit within the larger argument.

Does that help?