Let me walk you through this step by step.
The argument's structure is:-
Conclusion: The confectionery industry continued its rapid expansion last year.
-
Evidence: Sales of
three dyes (Red
40, Yellow
5, Yellow
6) commonly used in confectionery grew by
13% to
$8 billion.
The question asks: What additional info would help us judge whether this evidence actually supports the conclusion?
Key Insight: The critical logical move here is that the argument uses dye sales as a PROXY for confectionery industry growth. It's saying: 'Dye sales went up,
therefore the confectionery industry grew.' But this only works if dye sales are tightly linked to confectionery production.
Now ask yourself: What could break that link?
Answer D: If these dyes are also heavily used in, say, the textile industry, cosmetics, or other food products, then their sales growth could be driven entirely by those other industries — not confectionery at all. Knowing whether these dyes have non-confectionery uses is essential to judging whether the evidence supports the conclusion.
Why not the other choices?-
A: General economy trends don't help evaluate this specific evidence-to-conclusion link.
-
B: We already know sales grew
13% to
$8 billion — we can calculate last year's figure (~
$7.08B). This adds nothing new.
-
C: The industry's response to health campaigns doesn't help us evaluate whether dye sales = industry growth.
-
E: The effect on public dietary habits is beyond the scope of this evidence evaluation.
Key Takeaway: Whenever an argument uses one metric as a stand-in (proxy) for another, always ask: 'Is this proxy actually exclusive to what it claims to measure, or could other factors be driving it?'Answer: D