Bunuel
Barry’s Barbecue is a restaurant chain that advertises itself as a safe place for diners with food allergies to eat. At Barry’s, whenever a diner books a reservation and mentions a food allergy, the kitchen staff is prohibited from preparing multiple dishes on the same grill. This ensures that there is no cross-contamination between dishes, but also can result in longer wait times as fewer meals can be prepared than would be the case under normal circumstances.
Which of the following is best supported by the information above?
A. The kitchen staff at Barry’s sometimes prepares multiple dishes on the same grill.
B. Barry’s will not make special kitchen accommodations for diners who do not make a reservation.
C. Not all restaurants follow food allergy precautions to avoid cross-contamination between multiple dishes.
D. Limiting cross-contamination from multiple dishes on the same grill is the most effective way to avoid issues for diners with food allergies.
E. Diners with food allergies are generally willing to be patient with longer wait times in order to avoid cross-contamination between dishes.
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:
With Inference questions, the correct answer has to fit the "must be true" standard, meaning that it has to be proven based on the passage; incorrect answers "could be true" but are not necessarily true based only on the information in the passage.
Here choice (A) fits that standard largely because of the phrase "under normal circumstances" at the end of the stimulus. If the prohibition on preparing multiple dishes on the same grill is different from "under normal circumstances," then it must be true that "sometimes" (note: "sometimes" is a very low bar to clear for proof) multiple dishes are prepared on the same grill. Choice (A) is therefore correct.
In contrast, notice the strong language within choice (B), that the restaurant categorically will not make kitchen accommodations (of any type) if a diner does not make a reservation. From the stimulus you know of one particular accommodation that will be made under a reservation, but you cannot conclude that there are no other possible accommodations, or that the restaurant wouldn't try to make that accommodation if someone were to arrive without a reservation.
Choice (C) could possibly be true ("not all" is another low bar of proof) but as this stimulus only tells you about one particular accommodation that one particular restaurant makes, you just do not have evidence to support this. (Note that while "not all" is a low bar, "food allergy precautions" is fairly broad: if every restaurant, for example, takes one small precaution like washing its dishes at high heat, that would be enough to rule out (C).)
Choice (D) is a classic example of an Inference answer choice simply going too far, using "the most effective" when you simply do not have information to rank different precautions.
And choice (E) is another example of a choice that might well be true, but does not have any proof in the stimulus.