Advertisement: The most flavorful olives in the world are kalamata oli

The argument makes a scope shift that "buying more kalamata olives" to "most flavorful olive oil". To note, the advertiser does not inform that "more kalmata leaves" are used in same proportion, in comparison with the competitor's offerings, of Zorba’s Olive Oil. That is where the flaw comes in... for instance if Zorba’s Olive Oil is selling more than its competitor, then its obvious that they will be "buying more kalmate leaves".

C, D and E are completely out of scope and A works against the premise presented. Select B.

Since, flaw and assumptions are two sides of the same coin, you can also use Denial test/negation and recheck.

Cheers !!

You don't require such far stretched reasoning for C. Just note that C is is about what constitutes the "best Olive oil", while the conclusion is about what is "most flavorful olive oil". So, C is out of scope.. eliminate.

I mean Answer is B ...typo in post....i gave explanation for B ...

oh looks so simple but not so simple after all..
if I am a trader that buys a lot of olive oils, that doesn't mean I put those olives in my bottles.
I can sell the olives to someone else, and make an even greater profit than I would use them to make oil...so B seems a good answer...
I have seen such patterns with sunflower oil in the past years... sunflower seeds price was greater than the price for sunflower oil; the process of obtaining the oil involves additional costs...
so yeah...I will go with B.

expert plz reply with explanation

This argument is meant to support the following conclusion:

- When you buy Zorba’s Olive Oil, you’re buying the most flavorful olive oil available today.

The conclusion is supported by the following premises:

- The more kalamata olives used to make a bottle of olive oil, the more flavorful the oil.

- Zorba's buys more kalamata olives than are bought by any other company.

What's missing? The argument goes from the fact that Zorba's buys the most kalamata olives to the conclusion that Zorba's oil is the most flavorful. To get from the fact that Zorba's buys the most kalamata olives to the conclusion, you have to assume that Zorba's not only buys the most kalamata olives but also USES THE MOST KALAMATA OLIVES PER BOTTLE OF OIL.

Does the argument ever say that Zorba's actually uses the most kalamata olives per bottle of oil? No.

Now, let's consider the choices.

(A) Incorrect. Since what this choice says is in line with what the argument says about Zorba's oil versus other companies' oil, it does not highlight a flaw in the argument.

(B) Correct. This choice highlights the flaw in the argument. Zorba's buys the most kalamata olives, but that it does does not mean that it uses the most kalamata olives per bottle. The reason for Zorba's buying so many kalamata olives could be simply that Zorba's makes the most olive oil, in which case, it may use fewer kalamata olives per bottle of oil even thought it buys more olives. So this choice brings up what the argument has overlooked.

(C) Incorrect. The argument is not about the best olive oil, but rather about the most flavorful. So, even if this statement were true, it would not affect the argument.

(D) Incorrect. The logic of the argument is focused solely on how many olives Zorba's buys and the effect of using so many olives in making the olive oil. The cost of the olives does not affect that logic.

(E) Incorrect. The relative sizes of harvests of various types of olive do not affect how many kalamata olives Zorba's uses per bottle. Regardless of the harvest size, Zorba's buys more kalamata olives than does any other company.