At Hospital A, there has been an upsurge in emergency room visits by children under twelve with stomach disturbances. Patient tracking revealed that the vast majority of the children had eaten candy labeled "Cononut Fun Snax" shortly before the onset of symptoms. The emergency room physicians concluded that it is unsafe for children under the age of twelve to eat products containing coconut.
Which of the following, if true, would be the best reason to doubt the warning?
So I guess we need to weaken the argument
(A) Coconuts contain saturated fats.
What has this got to do with the candy eaten by children? This is just a general fact
(B) Some pathogens are not detectable by any medical tests.
Out of scope
(C) No coconuts or coconut products are used in the manufacture of "Coconut Fun Snax".
This sounds good....if there is no coconut then the warning is not serving the need
(D) The patient tracking at the hospital contacted the parents of all of the children concerned and received full cooperation from them.
Out of scope
(E) Coconuts are a favorite food of many children
Again sounds like the result of a survey
Posted from my mobile device