Here's an argument that's really throwing me for some reason:
California patron: The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delivered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with dangerous pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangerous until it is washed. Clearly, the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit, thereby endangering its patrons.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.
(B) Most pesticides that are sprayed on fruit before harvest leave a greasy residue on the fruit.
(C) Many of the cafeteria's patrons are unaware that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells.
(D) Only pesticides that leave a greasy residue on fruit can be washed off.
(E) Fruits other than apples also arrive at the cafeteria in a greasy condition.
The credited response is A, but I can't seem to rationalize it. After reading the prompt, I felt that "greasy" was being equated with pesticide residue, but my instructor says it corresponds with "not being washed." I figured that the apples could have been washed by the farmer or by anyone else before they reached the cafeteria, but I assume I should understand response A to mean that the apples "are not thoroughly washed after harvest but [ARE WASHED] before reaching the cafeteria." It seems like the arguer IS NOT assuming that last part, doesn't it?
What gives? Why am I not getting this? Can somebody explain why A is the answer, and do so in a plain, easy-to-follow way? I went with distractor B, thinking it was the more accurate response. I still do, but we must think like the test writers, not fight them, eh gang?