PT 65 question (LR) Forum

[Malapropism]

Can someone please explain question 11 in the first LR section of PT 65 to me? Though I can understand why the other answers are incorrect, I don't like the correct one either.

The flaw I read in the initial argument is the assumption that one possible conclusion is the only conclusion. The correct answer, however, seems to assert not a conclusion, but an assumption that something (which almost seems potentially correlated - that everyone ate something from the camp cafeteria that made them sick) may be eliminated as a potential conclusion.

I mean, I can kind of convince myself that they're both the same sort of flaw and the answer is just flipped (asserting one piece of "evidence" leads to a falsely confident conclusion or elimination of a possibility), but that doesn't make me feel reassured that I'd catch on to something like this in the future.

Break this down for me, please?

[Legallybronzed180]

The flaw in the argument is that the only finger prints were mr t therefore who ever stole the diamond wore gloves and didn't leave prints. But it's assuming that mr t didn't steal it and therefore if he did he left finger prints and did not wear gloves.

Answer a has the same flaw the argument is assuming the food didn't cause the kids to get sick