Probus wrote:
In a cooking competition, various family-owned restaurants cooked dishes made from recipes that have been in their families for generations. The cake that won the competition was made from a recipe that head-chef Pierre Limore claims has been in his family for three generations since the 1940s. Although the sous-chef who actually baked the winning dish used an ingredient that has only recently become popular in the baking industry, around the late 1920s the same ingredient had been commonly used by chefs before it was temporarily declared unfit for human consumption.
Which of the following can be concluded on the basis of the information given above?
(A)The sous-chef who baked the cake was aware of the fact that the use of the specific ingredient would not violate the rules of the competition.
(B)Had the head-chef Pierre Limore notified the authorities holding the competition of the list of ingredients, it is highly unlikely that his dish would have won the competition
(C)The use of the recipe used to bake the winning dish does not belie the claim made by the head-chef
(D)The authorities holding the competition had a mechanism to verify whether the recipes used in baking the dishes in the competition matched the original recipes first used to make the dishes.
(E)To ensure that such competitions are fairly conducted, only chefs who can exactly replicate the original dish should be allowed to participate.
Family-owned restaurants cooked dishes made from recipes that have been in their families for generations.
Cake that won was from recipe of head-chef Limore who says it has been in his family for 3 gens (since 1940s)
Sous chef (second in command) who actually baked it used an ingredient popular again - it was popular in 1920s before being temporarily banned.
(A)The sous-chef who baked the cake was aware of the fact that the use of the specific ingredient would not violate the rules of the competition.
The ingredient is popular again. It was banned temporarily. Obviously, the ban has been removed now. Additionally, we don't know whether the sous chef was aware of all this or not.
(B)Had the head-chef Pierre Limore notified the authorities holding the competition of the list of ingredients, it is highly unlikely that his dish would have won the competition
The ingredient is popular again. It was banned temporarily. Obviously, the ban has been removed now. There is no reason the ingredient would change the suitability of the dish.
(C)The use of the recipe used to bake the winning dish does not belie the claim made by the head-chef
The ingredient was popular in 1920s before being banned (we don't know when it was banned). The recipe has been in his family since 1940s. It is certainly possible that the ingredient was used in 1940s. So the use of the recipe does not contradict the claim of the head chef. This is correct.
(D)The authorities holding the competition had a mechanism to verify whether the recipes used in baking the dishes in the competition matched the original recipes first used to make the dishes.
The argument doesn't tell us this.
(E)To ensure that such competitions are fairly conducted, only chefs who can exactly replicate the original dish should be allowed to participate.[/quote]
We are not looking for an opinion (use of "should"). We are looking for what we can conclude from the argument.
Answer (C)