Chess Champion: In a chess tournament, intermediate players can sometimes beat more advanced players. Because they are not aware of more advanced moves, the intermediate players will make simpler strategic choices, which in turn confuse advanced players who are used to playing with other advanced players.
Chess Novice: Chess players with less practice and less knowledge of strategic skill do occasionally beat advanced players, however, your claim is inaccurate. Any move on the board that leads to checkmate is clearly an advanced move, whether it is made by an intermediate player or a more advanced player.
Which of the following most accurately describes how the Chess Novice’s response is related to the Chess Champion’s argument?
A.It supports the validity of the Chess Champion’s factual basis for his conclusion.
B.It argues that the Chess Champion’s conclusion is true, but not for the reasons provided by the Chess Champion.
C.It refutes the Chess Champion’s opinion on certain evidence.
D.It makes a claim that undermines the Chess Champion’s main assumption.
E.It presents a consideration overlooked by the Chess Champion, which ultimately weakens his conclusion.
The IMO is supposedly
I disagree as the "evidence" stated in this option is an opinion/assumption as to what are more advanced moves(and these opinions can differ, making it not an absolute truth and hence not evidence), making D a better choice. In option D, the novice makes a claim that more advanced moves refer to those moves that lead to a checkmate-> and this claim is used to destroy the champion's main assumption that advanced moves are those made by advanced players. Can any one explain?