Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.
D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.
E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.
I'm confused why B is the correct answer?
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.
D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.
E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.
I'm confused why B is the correct answer?
