Q3 - Restaurant owner: The newspaper reporter who panned

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
The owner starts by discussing the reporter's credentials and why he isn't an expert. She then judges the writer's talent and status as a critic before offering an analogous situation.

Answer Anticipation:
The credentials and analogy are definitely premises (analogies are essentially always premises; credentials are just facts). The two opinions - that the reporter has no special expertise; that he's a good writer but not a true critic - are both potential main points (especially since the premises are offered to support them).

The "Therefore" test (seeing which supports the other) should help us figure out which conclusion is intermediate, and which one is the main conclusion. Running that test, the reporter's lack of expertise is evidence of why he's not a true critic. Therefore, the lack of expertise is the i. conclusion, and the good writer/not a true critic is the main conclusion.

*If you saw what I'm calling the i. conclusion as a premise because it's about the reporter's acknowledgement, I think that's fair.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) I. conclusion (or premise, depending on my asterisk in the Anticipation).

(B) Premise supporting his lack of expertise in this area.

(C) Concession made and attached to the conclusion (tricky!).

(D) Bingo. This is the author's ultimate opinion on the situation, as well as the statement that has support.

(E) Analogy supporting the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Analogies are almost always premises. Don't forget to use the "Therefore" test if needed!

#officialexplanation