(E) is an attractive answer choice but the principle needs to support the critic's conclusion, thus it needs to explain how is it possible that the food is inferior in a more popular restaurant. If we say that there is no relationship between the quality of food and popularity, we would actually weaken the argument because this principle would suggest that popularity is entirely random when it comes to the quality of food, whereas the critic advances a logical explanation for this discrepancy - arguing that a convenient location guarantees enough visitors regardless of the quality of food. In other words, it is not that there is no relationship between the quality of the food and the popularity, but a third variable may account for unexpected relationship between the two.
lerondagatesNovember 16, 2019
Ok, that makes sense now. When I re-read the passage, I get it with your explanation. Thank you!
