You are correct, answer choice (D) does not undermine the argument. The correct answer is answer choice (E).
The conclusion of the argument is that "manufacturers who wish to give reduced butterfat butter the more appealing name of 'lite butter' should be allowed to do so." Why? Because butterfat is no longer considered nutritious and healthful so the "public should be encouraged to eat foods with lower rather than higher butterfat content" but "the term 'imitation' with its connotations of falsity deters many people from purchasing products so designated."
(E) undermines the argument because those who are deterred by the name of the product are actually choosing a product with even lower butterfat content. Therefore, the switching the names in order to encourage consumers to choose products with lower butterfat content is rendered moot because they are doing that regardless of the name.
(D) is incorrect because it doesn't do anything to the argument. Cholesterol being only one of many factors that contribute to the types of health problems with which the consumption of excessive amounts of cholesterol is often associated with doesn't matter to our argument of changing the name of "imitation butter" to "lite butter" for the purpose of not deterring people from purchasing products so designated.
RichardMay 20, 2015
In response to your explanation to (E), I want to argue that manufactures intended to give the name "lite butter" to reduced butterfat butter, rather than butterfat butter, right? I suppose, the manufactures have realized the harm that high butterfat butter can bring, so they reduce the butterfat in their butter and they want to rename it in order to distinguish with the former products. Can you please explain the choice (C)?
NazMay 20, 2015
My thoughts on your response to (E): the manufacturers are intending to change the name of "imitation butter," a butter whose butterfat content has been diminished through the addition of water--let's say from 100 to 50--to "lite butter."
Answer choice (E) tells us that the majority of people deterred from eating "imitation butter" due to its name actually choose alternatives with a lower butter fat content than the "imitation butter," meaning these alternatives have an even lower butterfat content than 50.
So, since the reasoning of the argument is that the public should be encouraged to eat foods with lower rather than higher butter fat contents, even though the term "imitation" has connotations of falsity and may deter people from purchasing it, those who are deterred are buying butter with even lower butterfat content. Therefore, the deterrence is actual a beneficial thing because it is leading the majority of people to choose a product with an even lower butterfat content. So there is no need to allow the name change. Thus, (E) undermines the argument.
Now, to (C). Answer choice (C) does not seriously undermine the argument. The fact that "some" people who need to reduce their intake of cholesterol are not deterred from using the reduced-butterfat product even with the negative connotations of the term "imitation" could be completely irrelevant. Remember that "some" means at least one. So answer choice (C) merely means that at least one person who needs to reduce their intake of cholesterol is not deterred. But, that still leaves the possibility that the majority of people are deterred.
Thus, since the public should be encouraged to eat foods with lower rather than higher butterfat content and the term "imitation" could deter many people from purchasing the reduced butterfat content product, manufacturers should still be allowed to change the name to "lite butter."
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
