Health officials now recommend that

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   It neglects to consider whether restaurants that specialize in steak try to attract customers by offering steak

   Since this answer choices begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken, would be an objection. Can we say, "Hey, author --- steak restaurants are attracting customers by offering great deals on steak dinners. So you see, everyone is reducing their overall intake of high cholesterol foods"? Certainly not. If people are gobbling up discount steaks, that would just strengthen the author's contention that people aren't heeding the low cholesterol advice.

   3%
2. B

   Not Assumed5% picked this

   It assumes without warrant that people who eat steak at steak restaurants do not need to reduce their intake of foods

   Since this answer choices begins with takes for granted / presumes / assumes, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would qualify as a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that people who eat at steak restaurants don't need to reduce their intake of high cholesterol foods? No. The author isn't really assuming anything about whether those people do or don't need to reduce their intake. The author is only assuming that "people who eat at steak restaurants have not reduced their intake of high cholesterol foods".

   5%
3. C

   Out of Scope: price of beef1% picked this

   It presupposes that the popularity of restaurants that specialize in steaks is a result of a decrease in

   Since this answer choices begins with takes for granted / presumes / presupposes, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would qualify as a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that steak restaurants are surging because there's been a decline in the price of beef? No. The idea of a "decline in the price of beef" is totally out of scope.

   1%
4. D

   Unsupported Causal Relationship16% picked this

   It mistakes the correlation of the decline in beef consumption and the decline in the restaurant industry

   This is a weird answer because there is a mini-argument in the second sentence that is committing a correlation vs. causality flaw. The author mistakes the correlation of the decline in beef consumption and the health officials' recommendation for a causal relation. She is assuming that the reason for the decline in beef consumption is the health officials' recommendation. But this answer is saying the author assumes that "people eating less beef" is causing "an overall decline in the restaurant industry". She never makes or implies such a causal connection. And this answer has nothing to do with the actual main conclusion we're supposed to be addressing.

   16%
5. E

   Correct74% picked this

   It fails to consider whether the people who patronize steak restaurants have heeded the health officials by reducing their cholesterol

   Why this is right

   Since this answer choices begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken, would be an objection. Can we say, "Hey, author --- people who are eating at steak restaurants are still heeding the health recommendation; they are reducing their cholesterol intake by eating less cholesterol when they cook for themselves. The steak restaurant is the exception to their dietary habits"? Sure! The recommendation wasn't that you cease eating ANY foods with high cholesterol. It was that you reduce how much high cholesterol food you eat. It's possible that someone whose doctor recommended more exercise is following that doctor's advice, even though we see that person laying on their couch all day on Saturday. If they started exercising more on Mon - Friday, then they would be doing more exercise than before, even if they're not exercising every single day.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%