Summarize Argument
The restaurant owner concludes that the critic who panned her restaurant is not a true restaurant critic. This is because the critic has no special expertise about food.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the critic who panned the owner’s restaurant: “he is not a true restaurant critic.”
A
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant acknowledges having no special expertise about food and its preparation.
This is a premise that the restaurant owner uses to demonstrate that the critic isn’t a true restaurant critic. She uses the analogy of a drama critic to show that special expertise is required to be called a “true critic.”
B
The previous job of the newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant was as a political reporter.
This is support for the restaurant owner’s claim about the critic not being a “true critic.” A background in political reporting is very different than expertise in food and food preparation.
C
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant is a good writer.
The restaurant owner concedes that the critic is a good writer but maintains he isn’t a true critic. This is neither a premise nor a conclusion, as it does’t add to the restaurant owner’s argument.
D
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant is not a true restaurant critic.
This is what the restaurant owner is arguing for. Since the reporter lacks expertise in food and food preparation, and since no one would call someone a drama critic without expertise in their analogous field, the reporter isn’t a true critic.
E
A newspaper would never call someone a drama critic who had no special training in theater.
This is a premise used to show why the reporter in question isn’t a true critic. Since no one would call someone a critic in an analogous field without expertise, the reporter shouldn’t be called a restaurant critic without food expertise.