Recently, a report commissioned by a confectioners trade association noted that chocolate, formerly considered a heal...

shafieiava on February 9, 2020

Answer choices B versus C

I had a lot of trouble choosing between answer choices B and C as well as distinguishing what makes them different. Can someone explain what makes one a better answer over the other? Thanks in advance!

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

Already have an account? log in

Skylar on February 9, 2020

@shafieiava, happy to help!

(B) says the flaw is that the argument "applies a general rule to specific cases to which it does not pertain."

This is incorrect because it does not apply to the passage. Rather than starting with a rule and applying that rule to specific cases, the passage uses specific cases to deduce a principle. Moreover, this principle (that "if you wait long enough, almost any food will be reported to be healthful") does pertain to the specific cases- in fact, the cases are so relevant that the principle was based on them.

(C) says the flaw is that the argument "bases an overly broad generalization on just a few instances."

This is correct. It is better than (B) because it identifies the correct order- that the specific instances came first and allowed a generalization to be made based upon them. It also identifies the main flaw that we should notice while reading the passage- that the argument takes only two examples (chocolate and oil) as enough evidence to conclude that "ALMOST ANY food will be reported to be healthful."

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!