Principle: If a food product contains ingredients whose presence most consumers of that product would be upset to dis...

Mehran on October 1, 2013

Okay let's diagram the principle:

CIUMC ==> L

not L ==> not CIUMC

The application can be broken down as follows:

Premise: not CIUMC
Conclusion: not L

Do you see where the flaw is? The application is taking the nonexistence of the sufficient condition to conclude the nonexistence of the necessary condition. Remember, DON'T JUST NEGATE! There could be other sufficient conditions for labeling.

(A) is in correct because we are not discussing consumers of food in general. The principle states "consumers of that product." Therefore, this is now why the application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism.

(B) is incorrect because whether or not something is safe is irrelevant. Being proven safe for human consumption was not discussed on the stimulus.

(C) is incorrect because there was no value judgment being made.

(D) is incorrect because the principle does not discuss consumers buying the product after discovering ingredients in it, but whether or not consumer are upset at the discovery of said ingredient. Therefore, application of the principle does not take this for granted.

(E) is the CORRECT answer because it points out that the application has just negated the principle. According to the principle, "a food product contains ingredients whose presence most consumers of that product would be upset to discover in it" is sufficient to label that food as containing those ingredients (i.e. under certain conditions a certain action should be taken). The application, however, concludes that this action (i.e. labeling) need not be taken in the absence of those conditions (i.e. a food product does not contain ingredients whose presence most consumers of that product would be upset to discover in it).

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.