Q2 - soaking beans

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Lets start with the argument core...

The argument concludes that when the quality of a dish is more important than cooking it quickly, don't presoak the beans. Why? Because, while presoaking the beans allows the dish to be cooked more quickly, cooking without presoaking yields plumper beans.

The argument assumes a connection between plumper beans and better quality--expressed in answer choice (A).

Incorrect Answers
(B) is not a necessary assumption, since the argument's conclusion is limited to the case when quality is more important than cooking quickly. Could there be a dish where cooking quickly is important to quality? Sure, I'm thinking some seared ahi, but I'm not putting any beans in that pan. Another helpful way of looking at this one is that it's too strong to be needed for the argument to work.
(C) is out of scope, when did we start talking about the way food looks?
(D) is out scope, the argument never discusses soaking anything other than beans.
(E) has two issues. The consistent relativity... the more of ___, the the better the ____. There needs to be connection between plump beans and the quality of the dish, but not necessarily such specific relationship as is here implied. Furthermore, quality and taste are not necessarily the same. Are they likely to be connected, sure. But answer choice (A) says "quality," while answer choice (E) needs us to draw that connection. Lets stick with the connection explicitly established in (A).


#officialexplanation

[cvfh17]

it seems very simple the assumption but I have a little of trouble of eliminating the answer choices... any help please?

[csunnerberg13]

is (A) a sufficient assumption, as well?

[luckygirlsally]

This is such a simple question and I got the answer correct based on common sense. However, I had trouble diagramming the conditionality of it.

Premise:
Cooking with presoaking yields plumper beans:
/pre-soak --> plumper beans

Conclusion:
quality --> /pre-soak

How would you use the answer choice to gap the premise to the conclusion? It seems that I am perhaps diagramming this incorrectly...