Reminder:
- Read the question first
- Read the passage
- Find the conclusion, highlight keywords
- Find assumptions that the argument lies on
- Attack these assumptions with the answer options
- Discard any invalid options and you’ll have your answer
The text is talking about restaurant that has grey squirrel on the menu and the restaurant owner reasons why it is a good thing to have it on the menu. The author however, it opposed to this view, and attacks the restaurant owner by saying it is a cheap publicity stunt. The author does not go after the owner’s arguments, just motives. Now let’s look at the answers.
A It attacks the owner’s motive rather than her reasons;
The author is saying the only reason the owner is doing this is for publicity, but the author has actually listed all the benefits and reasons for this choice. The benefits are that it may help protect the red squirrel, it is free-range, low fat, and low on miles. These are all valid reasons the owner has to advocate for squirrels to be on the menu but instead, the author decides to attack her motive by saying it’s a cheap publicity stunt. This is the flaw in the argument because the author is ignoring all the beneficial evidence provided by the restaurant owner, and then attacking the motive without any real knowledge behind it. The author does not use evidence to prove that these attacks on motive are justified. Therefore we can see that this is the flaw because it avoids the arguments and, without knowing the owner, the author makes assumptions. A is the correct answer.
B It assumes the disappearance of the red squirrel justifies eating the grey squirrel;
This is focused on the wrong argument. The text has two main arguments, one from the restaurant owner and the other from the author. In these questions, we are always focused on what the author has to say, we need to find the flaw in their argument. The author’s argument is that squirrels should not be on the menu and that this is a cheap publicity stunt. Therefore B is incorrect.
C It attacks the whole notion of an ethical food;
This is not a relevant answer. ‘Ethical’ food is a term used at the start of the passage and then the restaurant owner believes why squirrels are ethical food. This is not the focus of the text, because it is not said by the author. The author has a different opinion and therefore the flaw must come from their (author) opinion. Therefore C is incorrect.
D It assumes that eating grey squirrels will protect the red squirrel;
This is not assumed in the text and supports the wrong argument (see explanations for B and C to determine why there is more than one argument). It is not assumed because the restaurant owner says that eating grey squirrels “may help protect the red one, in her view”. This has the words “may” which instantly removes the certainty of something happening. An even stronger statement is saying “in her view”, so this removes a lot of credibilities. Therefore D is incorrect.
E It assumes that red squirrels don’t need protection;
This is another distractor statement. The protection of red squirrels mentioned by the author was meant to provide support evidence as to why eating grey squirrels has benefits. The restaurant owner nor the author of the text is claiming that red squirrels don’t need protection, if anything it provides a solution to the problem of them disappearing (removing more grey squirrels). Therefore E is incorrect.