Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer

[BTGmoderatorDC]

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true

[deloitte247]

Option A: Correct
The statement supports the claim that a cause on an individual category can be compared across different categories.

Option B: Incorrect
This statement does not state categorically the term used in an ambiguously. The passage compares the cause of a phenomenon across two different categories.

Option C: Incorrect
A general claim is no been made here. the examples stated are based on two categories and the claims are assertive in that category.

Option D: Incorrect
The statement compares the cause and effect of the phenomenon in question. The passage is particular about the cause of tooth cavity. Its effect is not in the context of the passage.

Option E: Incorrect
Since it has stated that tooth cavity is caused by pretzel and caramel, there is already a laid down premise. it is therefore reasonable to compare the dissolution time.