PrincessZ wrote:
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.