Critical Reasoning

Chess Champion: In a chess tournament, intermediate players can sometimes beat more advanced players. Because they are not aware of more advanced moves, the intermediate players will make simpler strategic choices, which in turn confuse advanced players who are used to playing with other advanced players.

Chess Novice: Chess players with less practice and less knowledge of strategic skill do occasionally beat advanced players, however, your claim is inaccurate. Any move on the board that leads to checkmate is clearly an advanced move, whether it is made by an intermediate player or a more advanced player.

Which of the following most accurately describes how the Chess Novice's response is related to the Chess Champion's argument?

A.It supports the validity of the Chess Champion's factual basis for his conclusion.

B.It argues that the Chess Champion's conclusion is true, but not for the reasons provided by the Chess Champion.

C.It refutes the Chess Champion's opinion on certain evidence.

D.It makes a claim that undermines the Chess Champion's main assumption.

E.It presents a consideration overlooked by the Chess Champion, which ultimately weakens his conclusion.

I will go with B, as B clearly explains chess novice's argument.

What is the OA

B seems to be right.

IMO B

Experts please comment.
Even I chose B, but the OA is C .

[/spoiler]

I actually wrote this question, so I'm happy to answer for it.

The Chess Champion and the Chess Novice agree on the conclusion that intermediate players can beat advanced players, and the evidence why: the intermediate players make certain strategic choices that confuse the advanced players.

What they disagree on is the label applied to these strategic choices. The Chess Champion calls them "simpler" and portrays them in a negative light, while the Chess Novice seems them as "advanced moves" and portrays them in a positive light. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

B cannot be correct -- notice the Chess Novice's language "your claim is inaccurate." He is not fundamentally arguing FOR the Chess Champion's conclusion, which B implies.