Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.
Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?
The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.
The answer was C but I think it was E. Do any one think like me. Belove is explanation of Manhatan and I still do not find it relevant. So if the the explanation was true, so I can not figure out the difference bw "find assumption" and "strengthen the conclusion" type
The Consumer Advocate concludes that Mango Paradise is harmful and should be banned from production just based on the premise that it contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra. In order to arrive at this conclusion just based on the level of Ephedra, the consumer advocate must make a strong assumption that the level of 2.5% of Ephedra in any drink is harmful to consumer health.
(A) The issue of whether the drink is already being produced or is still considered for mass production is not relevant to the conclusion of the argument about its harmful effects.
(B) The issue of taste is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument. It may well be the case that Ephedra actually improves the taste of the drink.
(C) CORRECT. In order to conclude that the drink is harmful to consumer health just based on the fact that it contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, the consumer advocate must assume that this level of Ephedra makes any drink harmful to consumer health.
(D) Professional affiliation of the consumer advocate is beyond the scope of the argument.
(E) It is not necessary to assume that most consumers will suffer from cardiac problems. The chemical may well be harmful even if very few consumers eventually develop these problems. For example, it may simply increase the risk of these health problems or magnify their consequences.