Q1 - Advertisement: Most nutritionists recommend eating

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Tilapia fillets are the perfect choice, if you want the benefit of eating fish without the taste of fish.
Evidence: Tilapia fillets don't have the taste of fish.

Answer Anticipation:
Okay, do tilipia fillets achieve the benefits of eating fish?
(Or is there something about tilapia fillets that would prevent me from eating fish twice a week?)

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Who said we'd be eating more than the recommended amount? This is irrelevant.

(B) This is objectionable on an ecological level, but it has nothing to do with the truth value of this conclusion. Either tilapia fillets Do / Don't constitute the perfect choice if you want benefits of eating fish without the taste.

(C) YES, this attacks the missing premise … we knew tilapia fillets accomplished the "no fish taste" part of the goal. But the author never produced evidence that tilapia fillets give you the "benefits of eating fish". This answer goes against that notion.

(D) This might even strengthen, since it sounds like tilapia fillets could solve the taste problem for a fish-underserved segment of the population.

(E) This is irrelevant, since our tilapia fillets do not have the objectionable fish taste.

Takeaway/Pattern: If the conclusion is a two-part claim, (like "gives you the benefit of eating" but "not the taste" of fish), take the time to investigate whether the author successfully establishes both of those components in the Evidence.

#officialexplanation