Thanks for the question! So we’re being asked here for which argumentative strategy that the argument uses. Let’s take a look at the argument. It tells us that many people believe that eating chocolate can cause acne, then we’re told that people self-report chocolate causing acne often. But it seems, says the author, that effect and cause have been mixed, since it’s possible that stress might cause acne, and people eat chocolate when under stress.
Let’s take a look at what (A) tells us. It says that the argument cites counterevidence that calls into question the accuracy of the evidence advanced in support of the position being challenged. In other words, it questions the actual evidence itself and says that it’s wrong. But that’s not what happens. That would be like if the author suggested that acne and chocolate didn’t have any kind of correlation or were inversely correlated. But the author agrees that people who eat chocolate will often also face acne, agreeing quite explicitly in the second sentence. So the author isn’t disagreeing with the accuracy of the evidence itself. She’s interpreting the evidence in a different way, which is what (B) tells us.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
