Quote:
Recently, a report commissioned by a confectioners trade association noted that chocolate, formerly considered a health scourge, is an effective antioxidant and so has health benefits. Another earlier claim was that oily foods clog arteries, leading to heart disease, yet reports now state that olive oil has a positive influence on the circulatory system. From these examples, it is clear that if you wait long enough, almost any food will be reported to be healthful.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) relies on the truth of a claim by a source that is likely to be biased
(B) applies a general rule to specific cases to which it does not pertain
(C) bases an overly broad generalization on just a few instances
(D) takes for granted that all results of nutritional research are eventually reported
(E) fails to consider that there are many foods that are reported to be unhealthful
The correct answer here is
C. For CR questions pertaining to the structure of the argument, all we need to look at is what the statements in the argument do. In this case, the argument gives two examples of an occurrence to say that the occurrence will always happen.
Option A - We've been given nothing about the nature of bias in the sources. Given that a confectionary company has produced the results about chocolates, this could be a bit of a trap answer. However, since this question asks us to deal solely with the structure of the argument, we need not look at the validity of the claim itself, only the structural flaw within it.
Option B - The argument actually does the opposite. It uses specific cases to make a conclusion about a general rule, but this option suggests it uses the general rule to estimate specific cases.
Option C - This is what the argument does, it uses a few examples, and makes a general extrapolation from them.
Option D - The problem in this option is not about the reporting, but about using the examples to extrapolate a general case.
Option E - The number of unhealthy foods is completely irrelevant. Even if there are many, the argument is not inconsistent for saying that they will eventually be found healthy. The mistake is the minimal evidence used.
- Matoo from CrackVerbal