Restaurant critic: Most people agree that the food at Marva's Diner is exceptional, while the food at the more popula...

tomgbean on January 12, 2020

D vs. E

I chose D the first time around and when I retook the section I chose E. Even now I still think E is better than D. Marva's diner disproves D. Miner's diner has high quality food, yet it's not popular. However, because of D's convenient location, it is popular despite it's terrible food. I think the first time around I thought of the discrepancy of the quality of food between the two restaurants being due to the Train-tracks restaurant just not being willing to improve its food because they had enough customers to stay afloat, not that it couldn't. D suggests a sufficient necessary relationship that does not necessarily have to be true. E is more proven because you have a cause (popularity) and no effect (good quality of food) and then you have no cause (no popularity) but an effect (good quality of food). This suggest a lack of relationship, or at least a flawed relationship.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Annie on January 12, 2020

Hi @tomgbean,

Answer (D) is correct because it explains why the discrepancy between Marva's Diner and Traintrack Inn "should come as no surprise." We know that Traintrack is more popular, possibly because of its location, and that it doesn't need better food to attract customers. So, this answer choice tells us that this is understandable because Traintrack has no need to attract customers, and therefore won't improve its products. It connects the idea that being in a good location can explain a restaurant having bad food.

Answer (E) is incorrect because it tries to break the link between food quality and popularity. In reality, the argument is that there is actually a strong relationship between these two ideas, just a reverse one. Aka the more popular a restaurant (like Traintrack) the worse it's food will be.