Summarize Argument
The author concludes that eating tilapia fillets is a good choice for those who want the benefits of eating fish, but who don’t like the taste of fish. This is based on the fact that tilapia fillets don’t have the strong fishy taste that a lot of people don’t like.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that eating tilapia fillets has the same benefits as eating fish typically does.
A
Eating more than the recommended amount of fish can cause toxins that are present in high concentrations in many varieties of fish to accumulate in a person’s body.
This suggests we shouldn’t eat too much fish. But this doesn’t impact the argument concerning whether tilapia is a good choice for people who want the benefits of fish but don’t like the taste of fish.
B
Tilapia are invasive species that crowd out native species of fish in lakes throughout the world.
This suggests tilapia are bad for native fish. But this has nothing to do with whether tilapia is a good choice for people who want the benefits of fish but don’t like the taste of fish.
C
Tilapia fillets contain little of the beneficial fish oils that are the main reason nutritionists recommend eating fish frequently.
This points out that tilapia fillets won’t give people the same benefits of eating fish.
D
Most people who do not care for the taste of fish eat less fish than is recommended by most nutritionists.
This doesn’t impact whether tilapia fillets would be a good choice for people who don’t like the taste of fish.
E
People who rarely or never eat fish usually dislike any food with a strong fishy taste.
Tilapia doesn’t have a strong fishy taste. (E) doesn’t impact whether tilapia fillets would be a good choice for people who don’t like fish.