Critical Reasoning

Monroe, despite his generally poor appetite, thoroughly enjoyed the three meals he ate at the Tip-Top Restaurant, but, unfortunately, after each meal he became ill. The first time he ate an extra-large sausage pizza with a side order of hot pepper; the second time he took full advantage of the all-you-can-eat fried shrimp and hot peppers special; and the third time he had two of Tip-Top’s giant meatball sandwiches with hot peppers. Since the only food all three meals had in common was the hot peppers. Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill.

If both Monroe’s conclusion and the evidence on which he bases it are correct, they would provide the strongest support for which one of the following?
(A) Monroe can eat any of Tip-Top’s daily all-you-can-eat specials without becoming ill as long as the special does not include the hot peppers.
(B) If, at his third meal at Tip-Top, Monroe had chosen to eat the baked chicken with hot peppers, he would have become ill after that meal.
(C) If the next time Monroe eats one of Tip-Top’s extra-large sausage pizzas he does not have a side order of hot peppers, he will not become ill after his meal.
(D) Before eating Tip-Top’s fried shrimp with hot peppers special, Monroe had eaten fried shrimp without suffering any ill effects.
(E) The only place Monroe has eaten hot peppers has been at Tip-Top.



OA is B

Aren't both A and B similar

look for the trap...This is one of the most common CR trap....
A and B are similar in one angle...
For the right answer is the one with the same line of reasoning as the argument....
The argument concludes that it is solely due to Tip-Top’s hot peppers that he became ill...

Tip-Top’s hot peppers>>>>>>>Illness...........
i.e. Hot peppers then illness....
In A
No illness if no hot peppers.....
In B
Hot pepper consumption then illness....
Here B is more similar to the line of reasoning of the argument...
Hence its the answer...
Hope this helps

It is highly possible that something else apart from the peppers is making him sick. All we know is that peppers make him sick, which B clearly states. Just because peppers -> sick, we don't have "not peppers" -> "not sick"; in fact it is the other way around: "not sick" -> "not peppers."

M concludes that he became ill because of the peppers that is the only thing the argument says ( and it says its true)

So we can only say that when he eats peppers he gets sick thats it
so Answer is B

We cannot say what will happen to M if he does not eat Peppers .
so A is wrong ( He might get sick or he might not get sick )

Ex : X gets an A for maths If he answers all questions correctly
but he still can get an A is ( say A is given if one scores more than 75%)
with out answering all the questions correctly or he might not get an A

so we can definitely say that he got an A if we know that he got all the questions correct , but we don't know whether X will get an A if he has missed one question , X might or X might not get

I answer is B as the conclusion is if he eats pepper, he will fall ill. The other statements will be supported if pepper can be concluded as the ONLY reason why he falls ill. I don't think this is GMAT style though. In GMAT, we believe the cause ALWAYS produces the results. If the cause is absent, there won't be the predicted results, hence all 5 answers.

Hey can anybody explain, how the other options are incorrect, I mean step by step.

Thanks

A : no pepper no illness. [no cause no effect]

B : confirming that it's PEPPER AGAIN. [confirming the cause]

how do we pick the better of the two in such circumstances?

i picked (A) because i had done a support CR question whose answer choice had the pattern in (A). the same logic crashed here.

Question Stem:The question stem states that if the above statements are true, then which one of the following stongly supports the argument.

From the understanding of the question stem, it is First Family -
Must be true question type.

Stimulus
Stimulus consists of an argument with a Causual Conclusion. But, as per the question stem, the ans choice must be proved by information in the stimulus. Hence, the ans choice must prove the causal conclusion.

Summary
To summarize, it is Must be true - Cause and Effect Reasoning, with a causual conlcusion. The author makes a conclusion based on the two events that occur together.

Cause -> Effect
Hot pepper -> Illness

A. Cause does not happen -> Effect does not happen. Consider this ans as a contender.
B. Cause occurs -> Effect occurs. This is true. This is what stated in the stimulus.
C. Same as Ans A. Cause does not happen -> Effect does not happen.
D. Cause does not happen -> Effect does not happen.
E. Does not provide any support to the conclusion.

I got it wrong when solving the problem for the first time. But, while analysing the problem I got all the above info.

Good question virgo80! Thx for brining it to the forum.

I will Go with option A in this case

I still feel B should be the answer.