Consumer advocates argue that the coating found on non-stick cookware contains harmful
chemicals that are released into the air when the cookware is heated above a certain
temperature. The manufacturer of the cookware acknowledges this hazard but assures
consumers that the temperature threshold is much higher than would ever be needed for food
preparation and therefore no special precautions need be taken in using the cookware. Which
of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claims of the
A) The chemicals released by the coating can linger in the air for days
b) Empty cookware left on the flame often reaches exceptionally high temperatures.
c) Several consumers have already claimed illness as a result of using the cookware.
d) The manufacturer did not test the cookware for this phenomenon until consumer advocates
brought the issue to its attention.
e) There are effective non-stick coatings that do not release toxins when heated.
Main CR Qs link - Main link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html
I doubted between b) and c) and finaly selected c).
I understand all the explanations listed above about why c) is wrong. And I agree with them.
However, isn't it possible to adduce similar reasons for b) being wrong as well? For example:
1) "exceptionally" does not necessarily mean that such exceptional temperatures may reach the required threshold. Say, the average cooking temperatures are betweem 100 C and 300 C. "The threshold" is 1000 C. The "exceptional" temperatures could be between 500 C and 700 C and they would really be exceptional comparing to normal temperatures for cooking, but they would be far away from 1000 C.
2) leaving and empty cookware on the flame for some time is an integral part of food preparation process (at least for many dishes). And it is stated in the stem that "the temperature threshold is much higher than would ever be needed for food preparation". Of course we can assume that someone can accidentally forget about an empty cookware on the flame.
What I want to say is that the answer b) also requires a lot of inference (in my opinion) - the same as answer c).
Can someone comment on this please? Thanks