In a fast-food outlet, the pizza sold has more calories than burgers.

Premise 1: In a fast-food outlet, the pizza sold has more calories than burgers.
Premise 2: The ice-cream it sells has more calories than the pastries it makes
Conclusion: It follows that pizza has more calories than pastries.

The argument above continues to be logical if any of the following, if true, is introduced as an additional premise, EXCEPT

A. Burger has more calories than pastries
Pizza > Burgers > Pastries: TRUE
B. Ice-cream has more calories than pizza
Ice cream > {Pastries, Pizza> Burgers }; NOT NECESSARILY TRUE
C. Pizza and ice-cream have equal calories
Pizza= Ice-cream > {Burgers , Pastries}; TRUE
D. Burger and ice-cream have equal calories
Pizza > Burger = Ice-cream > Pastries; TRUE
E. Burger has more calories than ice-cream
Pizza > Burger > Ice-cream > Pastries; TRUE

IMO B

given in argument that calories of pizza>burgers
and ice creams > pastries
also conclusion is that pizza > pastries
therefore pizza>ice cream or pizza= ice cream also possible
target we need to find an option which is not in line with our arguement
A. Burger has more calories than pastries - yes may be possible
B. Ice-cream has more calories than pizza- correct option as its not possible
C. Pizza and ice-cream have equal calories; yes may be possible
D. Burger and ice-ream have equal calories; yes may be possible
E. Burger has more calories than ice-cream; yes may be possible

OPTION B is not valid ; hence correct

I got the answer wrong as I missed the third statement "it follows that pizza has more calories than pastries" which is conclusion derived from below statements:

1. Pi > B
2. I > P .
conclusion: Pi> P .

This can only be derived when we know Pi> I (as I>P). Hence option B is correct, which says I is having the highest calories. (It is an Except question.)

What is the source of this problem?
I can assure you that you would never come across anything such as this on GMAT or LSAT.

Cheers!