Pretzels and caramels

[s2006041405]

14-20）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

[mini_india]

(B) looks more like it. Caramel can dissolve faster than do pretzels, but that does not necessarily mean the duration of contact with teeth is shorter in the case of caramel. The dissolved caramel could, possibly, stick on longer than in the case of pretzels. So, dissolved is ambiguously used in the stimulus.

[nverma]

IMO B

[marianha]

oa is a

[nverma]

Originally Posted by marianha

oa is a

Hi Marianha

Can u please explain the reason of choosing A.

As its explicitly mentioned in the argument that what is TRUE for Pretzels in the given context is also TRUE for Caramels.