Consumer advocate: Under the current absence of government standards for food product labeling, manufacturers are mis...

joryjes October 3, 2018

I have the same question. Can you please provide an answer?

claire_crites January 26, 2019

Why isn't A correct?

Ravi January 26, 2019

@hbrennan14@gmail.com, @joryjes, and @claire_crites,

Happy to help. The consumer advocate is saying that there's a lack of
government standards, manufacturers are misleading/deceiving consumers
with labeling and their use of words, and that misleading consumers
with words is a bad thing.

The manufacturer says that words can have multiple meanings and that
they're not doing anything that's against the law (they're not failing
to comply with rules because there aren't any rules about this). He
finishes by saying that they'll comply with rules when the government
creates them.

the question stem is asking us for the answer that, if true, best
supports the manufacturer's position.

This question is essentially a strengthen with a sufficient premise
question, so we're looking to build a stronger bridge between the
manufacturer's premise and his conclusion.

You guys chose (A) instead of (C). Let's take a look.

(A) says that in the absence of government definitions for terms used
in product labeling, common standards of understanding alone should
apply. (A) is basically saying that if there aren't rules, then only
the common standards of words should be applied.

Does this support the manufacturer? No, it supports the consumer
advocate because the consumer advocate is the one saying that
companies are being deceptive to consumers by not using words in their
most common form of understanding. Since (A) is supporting the wrong
person's argument, we can get rid of it.

(C), on the other hand, is saying that to the extent that it is legal
to do so, people should be free to exploit to their advantages the
inherent ambiguity and vagueness in language.

This is what the manufacturer is doing (and admitting to doing), and
it's also what he's claiming to be is fine because there are no laws
prohibiting it. This goes in-line with the manufacturer's argument and
would provide a strong defense for his position, so this is the
correct answer.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!