Helen: Reading a book is the intellectual equivalent of investing money: you’re investing time, thereby foregoing other ways of spending that time, in the hope that what you learn will later afford you more opportunities than you’d get by spending the time doing something other than reading that book.
Randi: But that applies only to vocational books. Reading fiction is like watching a sitcom: it’s just wasted time.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the technique Randi uses in responding to Helen’s claims? A. questioning how the evidence Helen uses for a claim was
gathered B. disputing the scope of Helen’s analogy by presenting another analogy
C. arguing that Helen’s reasoning ultimately leads to an
absurd conclusion D. drawing an analogy to an
example presented by Helen E. denying the
relevance of an
example presented by Heleni had only B and C in consideration. D and E are wrong for the reason that Helen never presents an example. Now, in B and C, 'another analogy' and 'absurdity of conclusion' compete. Although 'disputing' is clear in meaning than 'arguing', 'scope of Helen's analogy' creates confusion; however, 'absurdness of conclusion' is not right. It is so because Randi clearly says 'it's just wasted time' i.e. some conclusion which is not absurd.
Answer B.