Thanks for the question! So let’s look back at the stimulus. The first report commissioned by a confectioners trade association tells us that chocolate is an effective antioxidant and has health benefits. This is definitely kind of suspicious. The next claim is that oily food is bad for artieries, but now reports are telling us that olive oil can be healthy because of positive effects on the circulatory system. So then, we conclude that if you wait long enough, almost any food will be reported as healthful.
Now we’re asked to find the flaw in the argument, and (A) tells us that it’s that the argument relies on the truth of a claim by a source that’s likely to be biased. That is definitely the case with the study about chocolate by the confectioners trade association, no doubt about it. But what about the olive oil? We’re not told that that’s a biased group; we’re just told that “reports” tell us that olive oil can be good for the circulatory system now. So we can’t conclude that those reports come from biased sources, and so (A) doesn’t apply to the whole stimulus and isn’t the correct answer.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
