Critical Reasoning

Dear All,

Another one I couldn't understand - any help by experts would be greatly appreciated.

The quarterly food inspection, performed by the local health team observes the customer reactions to fast food restaurants and family dining restaurants. However; during each inspection they discover that there are more reports of food poisoning found in the family dining restaurants than in the fast food restaurants.

Of the following statements, which one best clarifies the apparent paradox?

A. Customers are most likely to connect the illness they've experienced to their most recent meal if the illness has suddenly struck all of the people they ate with.
B. Customers complain less about the food poisoning they experience in fast food restaurants, because they expect it.
C. More people choose fast food restaurants over family dining restaurants.
D. Food poisoning cases are not related to the time customers ate at the family dinging restaurants, or the number of people who all ate the same meal.
E. The family dining restaurants microwaves certain food items instead of cooking them on the stove

My Take B
Whats the OA?

Apparently the answer is A - I picked B as well so was a little confused.

How does A resolves the Paradfox?
Can we have anybody to explain why the Answer is A!!!
Also What's the Source

The source is an online LSAT practice test -- https://www.testprepreview.com/modules/a ... soning.htm

I really don't get it. Could the test be incorrect??

A:
People generally go to family restaurants with their family, so if a case of food poisoning happens in a family restaurant it ail the entire family and the family will be able to attribute the illness the food they ate the restaurant.
Say the son falls ill and finds that his mom has also fallen ill, he'd say, 'Mom, how come we have the same problem? Must be the food that we ate last night at the restaurant.'
While, people mostly go in small groups or friends to fast food restaurants. So, even if they fall ill because of food poisoning, they might attribute to it something else because they won't be able to see that people around them have the same problem.

To summarise: Even with more cases of food poisoning at food fast restaurants than at family restaurants, it is possible that more cases of food poisoning are reported at family restaurants because it is easier for a family to attribute their illness to the food compared to a group of friends.

(A) does explain the paradox and should be the correct option.

B: IF people expect a case of food poisoning more in a fast food restaurant than in a family restaurant, they would easily be able to attribute their illness to food poisoning when asked by the food inspectors. So, this option makes the paradox even more complex than clarifies it.

(B) is definitely wrong.

Thanks Aneesh.

Your note does provide a possible explanation - However still don't understand why this would happen at 'every' inspection. The para notes that "during each inspection they discover that there are more reports of food poisoning found in the family dining restaurants"

Any idea why the reports would show more instances of food poisoning every single time?

Yes, if you assume that during each inspection the team collects a sizeable number of data (small discrepancies will be nullified), this pattern should follow each time if what is given in (A) is to be believed. But, it might not be true each time for a small data.

Too much outside information is used here to reach the correct answer. Why do you say that people go with their families to family restaurants but not to fast food restaurants? May be they go to fast food restaurants also with their entire family? May be all the family members just love burgers. Option "A" is really stretching the boundary of the CR.

Option B states that the customers complain less because they expect it. So, they complain less to the health observers during the inspection. Why can't that be assumed since we have assumed a lot trying to prove A correct?

aneesh.kg wrote:A:
People generally go to family restaurants with their family, so if a case of food poisoning happens in a family restaurant it ail the entire family and the family will be able to attribute the illness the food they ate the restaurant.
Say the son falls ill and finds that his mom has also fallen ill, he'd say, 'Mom, how come we have the same problem? Must be the food that we ate last night at the restaurant.'
While, people mostly go in small groups or friends to fast food restaurants. So, even if they fall ill because of food poisoning, they might attribute to it something else because they won't be able to see that people around them have the same problem.

To summarise: Even with more cases of food poisoning at food fast restaurants than at family restaurants, it is possible that more cases of food poisoning are reported at family restaurants because it is easier for a family to attribute their illness to the food compared to a group of friends.

(A) does explain the paradox and should be the correct option.

B: IF people expect a case of food poisoning more in a fast food restaurant than in a family restaurant, they would easily be able to attribute their illness to food poisoning when asked by the food inspectors. So, this option makes the paradox even more complex than clarifies it.

(B) is definitely wrong.

I also have the same train of thought. Still don't understand how A is better than B.

Too much outside information is used here to reach the correct answer. Why do you say that people go with their families to family restaurants but not to fast food restaurants? May be they go to fast food restaurants also with their entire family? May be all the family members just love burgers. Option "A" is really stretching the boundary of the CR.

Option B states that the customers complain less because they expect it. So, they complain less to the health observers during the inspection. Why can't that be assumed since we have assumed a lot trying to prove A correct?

Guys I would advise to stay away from such confusing questions as they are not gmat representative.
I also do not agree to Aneesh view, it is not worth to FORCE fully try to prove a wrong choice A correct by assuming a lot of things
B looks better from any angle and hence is the most logical answer it seems