Of course Tom's opinion carries the most weight. That's undeniable. The part that gets me about you conspiracy theorists, though, is that literally any results other than the one you wanted, and even the ones you do want, are spun to justify your nonsense. Brooke makes it to the final four, winning two eliminations…

She was sent home (or rather, to LCK) exactly one episode after the brunch challenge. And if we accept this ridiculous argument that she only lasted that long/came back/won because of Tom's favoritism, then I really, really doubt one more episode of LCK would have made much of a difference.

I won't argue against you if the point you're trying to make is that Sheldon and Shirley were more consistent than Brooke this season. It's just that this thread started with a claim that Brooke only won because Tom was biased in her favor; the fact that she won the most challenges was offered as evidence for why…

The line you originally responded to was "Looking over the season, Brook won more challenges this season than any other chef". You took that to mean eliminations only, and when eyesglazedover pointed out that QFs also count, you claimed "Win wise with the quickfires though, Brooke pulls ahead of Shirley, but is still…

Huh? If you include the Quickfires, Brooke pulls even further ahead of Sheldon. She won three eliminations and five QFs, he won one elimination and three QFs. Shirley won three eliminations and no QFs.