Critical Reasoning

Restaurant reviewer: In response to lagging sales based on a reputation of poor quality, Lanzillotti's Pizzeria launched a city-wide marketing campaign reintroducing its pizza as being made with organic ingredients and flavorful sauces, evidence of a new emphasis on quality pizza. But after visiting Lanzillotti's last night I can only conclude that the reintroduction was simply empty advertising language, as my pizza tasted no better than the pizza I had eaten at Valvano's earlier in the week.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the reviewer's conclusion?

a> Valvano's Pizza is not known for using organic ingredients in its pizzas.
b> Other diners on the same evening also reported that Lanzillotti's pizza was no better than Valvano's.
c> Valvano's Pizza is not considered among the highest-quality pizzas in town.
d> The reviewer ordered the most popular pizza that Lanzillotti's offers.
e> Lanzillotti's appetizers and desserts were not made with organic ingredients.


[spoiler]OA : C[/spoiler]

I think answer should be B and not C. B strengthen the argument whereas C is an assumption

On first thought it is C to me.

(A) Valvano's Pizza is not known for using organic ingredients in its pizzas.(Unconcerned)
(B) Other diners on the same evening also reported that Lanzillotti's pizza was no better than Valvano's. (Does not strengthen the reviewer's position directly, too broad to consider)
(C) Valvano's Pizza is not considered among the highest-quality pizzas in town.(My pick)
(D) The reviewer ordered the most popular pizza that Lanzillotti's offers.(Close, since if the best pizza is not good, then the conclusion can be inferred, but this option needs background support, such as option C)
(E) Lanzillotti's appetizers and desserts were not made with organic ingredients. (Unconcerned)

Interesting question.

When reading the question stem, my first thought was "ok, the reviewer's conclusion... so we need to strengthen specifically what HE/SHE believes and be careful of issues in the stem that may lead to misleading answers that do not have anything to do with the reviewer's conclusion."

The reviewer says that the advertising language was empty. And, the pizza had tasted no better than Valvano's. So what made him believe the advertising language was empty that led him to a conclusion on taste? What did the advertising language claim? Organic ingredients... flavorful sauces... evidence that QUALITY is the goal of Lanzillotti's. The ad is implying that Lanzillotti's pizza would be higher quality than before.

So, I am thinking that ok, Lanzillotti's pizza did not improve quality... it's sauce was not great... the organic ingredients were not great... Also, he is using Valvano's as a benchmark. It must not be very good. Because if Valvano's was among the highest quality pizza in town, then Lanzillotti is just as good as Valvano's and Lanzillotti improved its quality.

A) Ok, if it's not known for organic ingredients, then how can the author even draw a comparison, let alone strengthen his claim?

B) I read option B as a comment that is simply parroting what the reviewer said. "I can conclude that this pizza was terrible. Fred ate with me and said the pizza was terrible too." It's not exactly strengthening... it's simply repeating what is said in different form. What someone else says does not make it true.

C) If Valvano's is not a very good pizza parlor, then the reviewer seems to be implying that Lanzillotti's pizza is either not very good, or even worse. The ad claim that quality was improved is strengthened.

D) This simply adds detail to the process of eating the pizza. The conclusion calls for a comparison with Valvano's. Here, the statement simply stays within Lanzillotti and simply says what the reviewer did... can't exactly infer anything here.

E) We are talking about pizza. Though yes, desserts are critically important at Italian restaurants.

Hope this is helpful.