A person reading a new book for pleasure is like a tourist traveling to a new place. The reader reads, just as the tourist travels, to enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information. Thus, it is better to read fewer books and spend more time on each rather than to quickly read as many as one can, just as it is better to travel to fewer places and spend more time in each rather than to spend a small amount of time in many different places.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Tourists generally learn something about the places they visit even when they are there only to relax.
(B) Tourists gain much more understanding of a place once they have spent several days at that place than they do in their first few days there.
(C) Many people report that they can learn far more about a place by visiting it than they can by reading about it.
(D) Tourists who have read about a place beforehand tend to stay longer in that place.
(E) Some tourists are unconcerned about gaining information about a place other than what is necessary for their immediate enjoyment.
Prethinking The conclusion is about to read fewer books while the premise is about to read is to gain understanding rather than to acquire new info. The gap to close is between gaining understanding and read few books; if reading few books can enable better understanding, the gap is closed.
A - incorrect. 'learn something' is ambiguous; it is about gaining understanding or achieving information? Even if it's about gaining understanding, how is it related to travel to fewer places or reading fewer books?
B - correct: it means that if travelers spend few more days, they will get better understanding. Spend few more days might be equivalent with travel to fewer places => strengthen