Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly enjoyed the th

(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top's daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers. => wrong, Monroe have poor appetite
(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal. => not mention baked chicken. out of scope. Maybe have another cause for his ill. Ex: chicken flu.
(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top's extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after this meal. => yes, in scope of sentence
(D) Before eating Tip-Top's fried shrimp with hot pepper special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any side effects. => same reason as B
(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top. => too extreme.

hello
my analysis is as followed
monroe conclusion it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill
evidences 3 meals at the tips tops different foods only thing in common hot peper
after each meal he got sick


A strong support it show that the hot pepper is the critical factor
b slight support show that no matter the meal if it contains hotpepper he get sick
if P then Q
c NO p NOT Q and this is not valid
this is an hypothesis
d does not show anything neutral sowhat type as it does not state the presence of hot pepper
e weaken the conclusion

b is better because it shows a clear cause and effect relationship between having hotpepper and getting sick
while a give the ideas that that there can be something wrong with Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials

hope this help

best regards

GMATNinja ChiranjeevSingh

Hello Experts,

It would be great if you can share your analysis on this question?

Thanks

Because we are told that Monroe's conclusion is correct, we know that it is solely due to Tip-Top's hot peppers that he became ill. Notice that the verb "became" is in the past tense. We know that the hot peppers made him ill during each of the three visits described in the passage. However, that does not prove that he will not become ill even if he doesn't eat hot peppers next time. Maybe next time he eats sausage pizza, the chef will accidentally under-cook the sausage and, as a result, Monroe will get a foodborne illness from the sausage.

From PowerScore

Well, we know he ate three separate meals with hot peppers, and, importantly, "after each meal he became ill" (italics added for emphasis). Then, at the end, Monroe concludes that the peppers were the sole culprit.

The interesting thing is that we are told in the question stem that "both Monroe's conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct," which means that we now have to accept that Monroe was right about the hot peppers being the sole cause of him becoming ill after the three meals in question.

(A): Yes, this is far too broad, and it also looks into possible future meals, which haven't been addressed. We don't know anything about the daily specials, and it is possible that some other element—one that Monroe has yet to encounter—might make him sick, or that at future meals different factors might be in play.

(B): "I eliminated B because it didn't account for the size of the food that Monroe was eating." — as you've probably figured out now, the fact that this didn't address the amount of food eaten isn't a problem (since we are ignoring that element per the question stem). Instead, because this answer specifies that Monroe would've eaten hot peppers with this meal (which was a substitute for one of the three meals we already know about, where the hot peppers were indeed what was making him sick), we can ascertain that he would have for sure become sick after this meal. Thus, this answer choice is strongly supported by the information in the stimulus, and is correct.

(C): This answer choice has some similarities to (A). First, this is a forward-looking answer that talks about the next time, and at that point things could be entirely different. What we know about is what happened at the three meals discussed in the stimulus, and what happens thereafter is not bound by the same rules or conclusions. By comparison, look at answer choice (B), which quite specifically substitutes the food used in one of the three named meals in the stimulus.

So, while we knwo that when Monroe ate hot peppers at those meals and that caused him to become sick, for a future meal we can't guarantee what will happen, or that some other factor won't cause him to be sick.

Answer : B

Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly enjoyed the three meals he ate at the Tip-Top Restaurant, but, unfortunately, after each meal he became ill. The first time he ate an extra-large sausage pizza with a side order of hot pepper; the second time he took full advantage of the all-you-can-eat fried shrimp and hot peppers special; and the third time he had two of Tip-Top’s giant meatball sandwiches with hot peppers. Since the only food all three meals had in common was the hot peppers. Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill.

If both Monroe’s conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct, they would provide the strongest support for which one of the following?

(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
--We don't know about ANY special. We just know that shrimp special won't hurt him
(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
--Correct. The argument is about hot pepper making him ill DEFINITELY.
(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
--We can't say. Maybe some other ingredient might make him ill
(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
--Before eating? out of scope
(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
--Out of scope

In my case, IMO is B

(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top???s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
-> We just know about the combination of hot pepper and three menus.
There is a possibility that there is some menu, which can make Monroe ill.

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
-> There is a sentence that conclusion is correct. Then we can assure that hot pepper makes Monroe ill.
So This passage is correct.

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top???s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
-> Monroe must be ill because of 'Hot pepper'

(D) Before eating Tip-Top???s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
-> Monroe must be ill because of 'Hot pepper'

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.
-> Out of scope. Place is not important.

From Power score:

While peppers were common to each meal, note that Monroe is someone with a generally poor appetite and here he is eating sizable portions in each case. Could that perhaps be the cause? Yes, definitely, and this problem focuses on that oversight.

The interesting thing in this question stem is that we are told that "both Monroe's conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct," which means that we now have to accept that Monroe was right about the hot peppers being the sole cause of him becoming ill after the three meals in question. The idea discussed in #20, namely that it was the large quantities of food that caused the issue in the three meals, now has to be set aside (and that is hard to do!).

So, with the above in mind, let's look at some of your answer comments again:

Answer choice (A): Yes, this is far too broad, and it also looks into possible future meals, which haven't been addressed. We don't know anything about the daily specials, and it is possible that some other element—one that Monroe has yet to encounter—might make him sick, or that at future meals different factors might be in play.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. "I eliminated B because it didn't account for the size of the food that Monroe was eating." — as you've probably figured out now, the fact that this didn't address the amount of food eaten isn't a problem (since we are ignoring that element per the question stem). Instead, because this answer specifies that Monroe would've eaten hot peppers with this meal (which was a substitute for one of the three meals we already know about, where the hot peppers were indeed what was making him sick), we can ascertain that he would have for sure become sick after this meal. Thus, this answer choice is strongly supported by the information in the stimulus, and is correct.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice has some similarities to (A). First, this is a forward-looking answer that talks about the next time, and at that point things could be entirely different. What we know about is what happened at the three meals discussed in the stimulus, and what happens thereafter is not bound by the same rules or conclusions. By comparison, look at answer choice (B), which quite specifically substitutes the food used in one of the three named meals in the stimulus.

So, while we know that when Monroe ate hot peppers at those meals and that caused him to become sick, for a future meal we can't guarantee what will happen, or that some other factor won't cause him to be sick.

Answer choice (D): We simply do not know what occurred prior to the three meals Monroe describes. The time in the stimulus where he describes eating friend shrimp could have been the very first time Monroe ever ate fried shrimp.

Answer choice (E): Again, we have no way of knowing this to be true. It is possible, but it does not have to be the case, and is thus an incorrect answer. Monroe may have eaten hot peppers before ever going to Tip-Top, and he may or may not have gotten sick afterwards. We just don't know enough about Monroe to conclude this; all we know is that the three times Monroe has eaten at Tip-Top, the hot peppers made him ill.

Posted from my mobile device

(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.

(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.

A, C, D, E are using extreme words and statements. eg- will. In B would is better. (Can be conclusion)

Idk about B being the correct choice here because we are not told anything about baked chicken. What if baked chicken counters some effects of the hot pepper side, as milk does?

We will have to assume that baked chicken will NOT have a positive effect on the guy's tummy which may balance the negative effect of peppers. Similar to how we have to assume, to eliminate choice C, that the large-sausage pizza may be rotten or undercooked on the guy's next visit.

If anyone can help, it'd be great.

­The wording of the question is key: "If both Monroe’s conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct, they would provide the strongest support for which one of the following?" Providing strong support is very different than PROVING something.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE that baked chicken contains the key ingredient that combats the effect of the hot peppers -- but the conclusion and evidence in the passage strongly suggest that Monroe will get sick from eating those hot peppers again.

So (B) is definitely the best answer here.

I hope that helps!

Understanding the argument - 
­Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly enjoyed the three meals he ate at the Tip-Top Restaurant, but, unfortunately, after each meal he became ill. The first time he ate an extra-large sausage pizza with a side order of hot pepper; the second time he took full advantage of the all-you-can-eat fried shrimp and hot peppers special; and the third time he had two of Tip-Top’s giant meatball sandwiches with hot peppers. Since the only food all three meals had in common was the hot peppers. Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill.

Basicaly the argument means - if hot peppers, then illness. 
Its converse would be - If there is no illness, then no hot peppers. 

But it doesn't mean if there are no hot peppers, then there are no illnesses, which is what option C does. 

If both Monroe’s conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct, they would provide the strongest support for which one of the following?


(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers. - There may be other reasons that he can still fall ill. Wrong. 

(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal. - ok. Carries forward the same cause-and-effect relationship. Mind you, this is not an inference question, which would require us to stick to the argument with no outside information. In other terms, it just carries forward the same relationship: "If hot peppers, then illness," which is as per the argument. 

(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal. - This sufficient is not established in the argument. Wrong order of sufficiency. 

(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects. - out of scope.

(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top. - no such mention.