Thanks for the question! Let’s break down the stimulus first. We’re told by Smith that meat in the diet is healthy—this is going to be Smith’s conclusion. Why does Smith think this? Because most doctors eat meat, and “who knows more about health than doctors do?” In other words, doctors know a lot about health, and most of them eat meat, so meat in the diet is healthy.
Now we’re asked to find a flaw in the reasoning. And we should notice right after reading the stimulus that this is a pretty weak argument. After all, there are doctors who smoke, who eat candy, etc.
(C) tells us that the problem with this argument is that the argument assumes at the outset what it claims to establish through reasoning. In other words, the argument is a circular argument, or the conclusion is basically a restatement of one of its assumptions or premises. Is that what happens here? What would be something along the lines of “meat in the diet is healthy. Why? Because meat is healthy.” It’d be worded better, but that’d be the gist of what was going on. And that’s not what happens here, so (C) is incorrect.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
