Bunuel
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 manufacturer?
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.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The claim of the manufacturer is that no special precautions need be taken when using the cookware. The basis of this claim is that the cookware is dangerous only when it reaches a temperature much higher than normally reached during cooking. We are asked to find a choice that weakens this claim; since the danger comes only at high temperatures, the correct choice will likely have something to do with temperature.
(A) The fact that chemicals can linger for days does not affect the claim; if the chemicals are not released in the first place, this is irrelevant.
(B) CORRECT. If "empty cookware left on the flame often reaches exceptionally high temperatures," then there may indeed exist circumstances under which the cookware will pose a danger. The manufacturer's claim that no precautions need be taken is greatly weakened.
(C) The fact that several consumers have claimed illness as a result of using the cookware does not mean that their illnesses were in fact from the cookware; the food may have been contaminated or the illness may have resulted from something entirely unrelated to cooking. Without proof of the claim, this choice is not relevant.
(D) The fact that the manufacturer did not test the issue ahead of time is irrelevant to the claim that no special precautions need be taken.
(E) The existence of other non-stick coatings that do not release toxins has little to do with the manufacturer's claim here about a non-stick coating that could release toxins.