Ming states she's happy that so many cookie makers have eliminated trans fat from their products. Carol is dumbfounded by Ming's statement because she says that doesn't just make cookies healthy.
The question asks, "Carol’s response indicates that she interpreted Ming’s remarks to mean that..."
We're looking for the flaw that Carol made in analyzing Ming's statement. In the stimulus, Carol clearly misinterpreted the meaning of Ming's statement. What's the flaw? Well, Carol is saying that Ming believes something that we have no support for her believing (she's putting words into her mouth). Ming tells us that it's fortunate for the consumer that the cookie makers aren't putting trans fat in their products, and from this Carol says that even without trans fat, desserts do not make for healthy eating. The problem with Carol's response is that just because the cookies don't have trans fats doesn't mean that Ming was stating that the cookies are healthy. The absence of trans fats doesn't mean that they're all of a sudden healthy. Additionally, Ming saying that it's fortunate that there's no trans fat doesn't imply that Ming believes these cookies are healthy.
You asked about (C).
(C) says, "if a food is not healthy, then it is unhealthy."
The problem with (C) is that Carol never talks about the difference between not healthy and unhealthy. Carol does not think of the cookies in a dualistic manner, so this is not the correct answer.
(B) says, "food that doesn’t contain trans fat is healthy food."
(B) does a great job in describing the problem with Carol's response. Carol misinterpreted Ming's statement, thinking that Ming was saying that the cookies are healthy (because they don't have trans fats) when Ming never actually implied this. (B) accurately captures this for us, so it's the correct answer.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
