Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine

This official question test the straw man error of reasoning

Straw Man
This error occurs when an author attempts to attack an opponent’s position by ignoring the actual statements made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process. In figurative terms, a “straw” argument is built up which is then easier for the author to knock down

Often this error is accompanied by the phrase “what you’re saying is” or “if I understand you correctly,” which are used to preface the refashioned and weakened argument. Here is an example:

Politician A: “The platform proposed by my party calls for a moderate increase in taxes on those individuals making over $20,000 per year, and then taking that money and using it to rebuild the educational system.”
Politician B: “But what you’re saying is that everyone should pay higher taxes, and so your proposal is unfair.”
In the example above, Politician B recasts Politician A’s argument unfairly. Politician A indicated the tax increase would apply to those with incomes over $20,000 where Politician B distorts that to “everyone should pay higher taxes.”

Here are examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in answer choices:
“refutes a distorted version of an opposing position”
“portrays the politician’s views as more extreme than they really are”

+1 for A.

The response by candy manufacturer falls in the category of Straw man - It simply ignores the argument made by the advocate.

Crick

Per Consumer health advocate, the amount of Caffeine is the cause of consumers addiction to the candy..
Candy manufacturer did mention that less caffeine is used however, his reasoning is flawed because he didnt mention if it is enough to make the people addicted..hence A

phew...hope um able to express my thoughts well...

Can someone please clarify the following. I really need to understand why/ where my thinking is wrong here.

A) While A points out to a logical flaw, it does not seem entirely right to me. 1)yes it does fail to address the issue, 2)but, the health advocate is not accusing the manufacturer of having 'enough' caffeine, yet of the 'intent' to keep consumers addicted.

C) The health advocate does wrongly answer by saying that each and every candy bar contains a uniform amount of caffeine: 'less caffeine in each candy bar than in the unprocessed...'

Where am I going wrong here? Please Help!

The argument is based on the premise that candy bars contains caffeine which,as per he advocate, can make people addicitive to it. Here, the advocate is not referring to the effects or how much caffeine is present in each candy bar. He just simply assumes that presence of caffeiene is enough to make people addicitve. His main motive is to show- "candy bars having caffeine is making people addict"

The company manufacturer just responded by saying there is lesser caffeine in their candy bar than in unprocessed cocoa beans. However, he does not mention whether that amount can make people addicitive or not. Hence, simply by stating that there is less caffeine does not refute the advocate conclusion that people might get addicitve to their candy bars (because of caffeine).

I hope it helps. , I will be glad to discuss further if you need more explanation.

Choice A for me.

Here is the structure of the argument:

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a [u]specifed amount of caffeine[/u]. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.

Structure: Amount of Caffeine -- Chocolate bars -- Customer

Candy manufacturer: 0ur manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.

Less Caffeine -- Chocolate Bars < Cacao beans -- Chocolate Bars

Amount of caffeine should be in the scope of the argument. Hence choice A is correct.

IMO the answer is A because it actually reflect the method of arguement

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.

Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.

The candy manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate's argument because it

(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacturer is enough to keep people addicted - Correct
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine - Incorrect
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process - Incorrect - loss of caffeine is not discussed
(D) treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer's candy in general - Out of scope
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound - Incorrect

Answer A
_________________

A is the correct choice - The statement properly identifies the flaw in the response that candy manufacturer does not answer the question whether adding caffeine to candy bars is designed to make them addictive.
_________________

Can folks explain why option E is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

The answer choice 'E' is incorrect as the manufacturer does not contradict the accusation, but rather avoids it. Hope this helps.
_________________

Amount of Caffiene – Choloate bars – making people Addicted

Amount of Caffiene <Caffience in Cacao Beans -> However that small amount maybe me sufficient for keeping people addicted – Hence the argument is not addressing that concern


Can anyone explain why B is wrong ?

(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine

- Even if the manufacturer did make this assumption, the information is not relevant to the accusation(Caffeine is the cause of addiction) ,which is not concered with naturally occurring caffeine in cacao beans

If you read the first line, the Advocate suggests that the company is adding caffeine in the candy bars to which the manufacturer replies that the caffeine in unprocessed beans is much higher. I am still confused with the option E. Can someone please help as to how my thinking process is off?

Option E states that the candy manufacturer contradicts the health advocate's conclusion. "Contradiction" is the denial of the truth of (a statement), especially by asserting the opposite."

So, for E to be true, the manufacturer would have needed to say something about how the company does not add caffeine to the chocolate or assert that the added caffeine is not enough to be addictive. In other words, he would need to negate the accusations directly. However, his response essentially says "the amount of caffeine in the chocolate bars is less than the amount in cacao beans". Even if that claim were true, it doesn't negate the accusation that the company adds caffeine or the accusation that the company wants to keep customers addicted. So, the answer is (A) because the manufacturer "fails to address the issue". He said something completely unrelated to the issue.

Hope this helps

I agree that A is slightly better, but any strong reason why B is incorrect?

(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine.

if some contains more caffeine than candy bar and some cocoa beans contains less caffeine than the candy bars than it does makes the argument flawed, doesn't it?

it's saying: "you know, my candy bar has low caffeine than all the unprocessed cocoa beans which are used to make the candy itself". But he'd wrong in saying that, as there are beans which have more caffeine.

thanks for the help

Notice that "0ur manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made," is a simple statement of fact.

That statement means that, if the beans used to make a bar contain x caffeine, that bar contains less than x caffeine.

So, it doesn't matter that some beans contain more caffeine than others, because the bars contain less caffeine than whatever beans they are made from contain, every time.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________