In which pudding is there chocolate?

In which pudding is there chocolate?

a. The pudding tastes like chocolate.

b. The pudding tastes of chocolate.

I agree with Philip,but if you have to come up with one answer, I'd say b., The pudding tastes of chocolate.

If you say something is LIKE something else, then it's NOT it, but LIKE it. So chocolate probably isn't in the pudding that tastes LIKE chocolate.

However, if the pudding tastes OF chocolate, then it's chocolate that one tastes in the pudding, not something like chocolate.

You're really deciding whther the pudding is LIKE chocolate or OF chocolate. In that sense, b. may be the better choice.

Ikia

I believe the questioner has already read this linguistic article. It says:

A final criterion is that different PP predicative complements drive different kinds of interpretation. A predicative LIKE PP drives an epistemic interpretation, as (12a) shows. A predicative OF clause is not epistemic, it is purely evidential as the example in (12b) shows.
　　　(12 a). The pudding tastes like chocolate (but it isn’t).
　　　(12 b). The pudding tastes of chocolate (!but it isn’t).
The reason for the difference between these two different PPs is that LIKE is a predicate of comparison, whose arguments may be concrete or hypothetical, whereas OF here denotes the composition of the pudding – chocolate must be part of the pudding in (12b).

paco

<Interesting.  It seems the author is saying that when I say the pudding tastes of chocolate, I am saying that I can taste in it the chocolate which I know to be in it.>

Note that the author's statement is modal (must) and not categorical.