求教：LSAT-14-2-20

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

请NN将得出的答案通俗翻译一下。

I pick A.

There are two different things: pretzel and caramel. The correlation holds for all pretzels or all caramel. However, it does not necessarily hold between two different things (pretzel and caramel).

答案是A。可就是答案的意思有些不明白。

mindfree能麻烦用中文解释一下吗？

Forgot to tell you. I have to beat up myself before I can type Chinese. Too painful.

In plain English, the correlation (the longer... the greater...) holds for everything in the category of pretzel, or everything in the category of caramel. So one pretzel might cause cavity more than the other pretzel. But we cannot be sure that such correlation holds across categories (pretzel vs. caramel).

谢谢两位版主，明白了