The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as "sugar-free," based on the replacement of all sugar by artificial swe...
b_theoOctober 17, 2019
Why B is right and E is wrong
Hey Lsat Max,
I had the same issue as the other thread, but after reading it over I think I understand why B is right. Is it because B shows that there is a need for the sugar-free labels so another group doesn't harm themselves? And is E wrong because B is just a stronger argument?
It'd be helpful if you could break down both options. Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The conclusion of the passage is the first sentence, which claims that labeling foods as "sugar-free" based on the replacement of sugar with artificial sweeteners should be prohibited by law. The premise given in support of this conclusion is the idea that consumers trying to lose weight will interpret the "sugar-free" label as low in calories, which is untrue. Therefore, they will harm themselves and manufacturers will knowingly profit.
We are asked to find the strongest challenge to the conclusion that "sugar-free" labels should be prohibited.
(B) is correct because it indicates a competing need to keep the "sugar-free" labels. Moreover, the need to prevent harm to diabetics is arguably more convincing than the need to protect consumers trying to lose weight because the harm to the former group is more likely to be directly life-threatening. Overall, your understanding of (B) appears to be correct.
(E) states that "exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumers than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains." However, it could be true that both what appears on a product label and the relative visual prominence of these pieces of information are both incredibly important, though the latter may be slightly more important. Regardless of which has the higher level of importance, it could still be true that the "sugar-free" label should be prohibited. In other words, the level of competing importance does not mean that the law could not prohibit specific behavior. Therefore, (E) does not challenge the conclusion of the passage and is incorrect.
Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions.
b_theoOctober 27, 2019
@Skylar, it does make sense! Thanks for breaking it down!
