Bunuel wrote:
Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.
The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
- Does not matter, the argument has nothing to do with the availability at health stores. The argument does not say that ephedra has been banned from sale in health food stores.
B. All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
- Again, makes no sense. The argument clearly states that there is another natural compound that has side effects and is widely available at health food stores.
C. The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
- This! The argument states that ephedra has GRAVE side effects and echinacea has side effects. It does not state the degree of side effects of echinacea. Thus, it is plausible that the advocate has assumed them to be similar and is arguing on the basis of the same.
Correct answer.D. The government should not have the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
- It is nowhere mentioned that.
E. It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.
- Again, no mention of the same and is an assumption that has no support in the question statement.
Option C.