Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unaccep

Nutritionist: Too much copper => prevent users from absorbing Vit C.
Manufacturer: Copper is useful for the health.

We could easily see that the Manufacturer's answer is irrelevant since it didn't prove that the copper is at sufficient amount not to negative all Vit C in its product.
_________________

Ans: B

Nutritionist's argument: Your product has copper --> Copper is bad for Vit C absorption --> Your ad is wrong for saying your product is good source of Vit C

Manufacturer's argument: Some people lack copper --> My product has copper --> My product is good even though it has copper

Now by comparing the last part of the above, you can see that nutritionist is emphasizing that the advertising claims of "good source of vit C"are wrong, whereas the manufacturer is focused on saying his product is good even though it has copper.

The manufacturer did not address the invalidation claim towards its advertisements raised by the nutritionist --> Ans B

Hi, I have explained in a reply above

Choice B & choice C are really close.

First, choice B directly describes the problem that the nutritionist raised. Choice C expressed that problem in indirect way.

Second, I think the question makes a trap: Vit C is positive; copper is negative and we simply calculate the total to estimate the overall effect. It's not true. What if this case occur? If copper appears in out body with a amount larger than a certain point, the body can't absorb any Vit C. This case points out that answer C is wrong.
_________________

Nutritionist: Your OJ has too much copper. Vit C is not absorbed then. Your advertising that your juice is a good source of Vit C is false then.

Juice Manufacturer: We need copper. The advantages of copper outweigh disadvantages (loss of Vit C absorption)

Now before you move on, think - the nutritionist says that your advertisement is inaccurate. Your OJ doesn't provide Vit C because of blah blah. The OJ manufacturer says we need copper and its benefits outweigh.
This is odd, right? The nutritionist is talking about false advertising abt Vit C. The manufacturer ignored that and starts talking about copper and its benefits.

The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it ...
So why is the manufacturer's response as a refutation to nutritionist's argument flawed? Because it ignores the main point of the nutritionist's argument and just takes a tangent. Now all we have to do is find an option that says essentially this.

B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
Correct. The manufacturer does not address the issue of whether its advertising claims are invalid.

Answer (B)
_________________

Correct Answer: Option B.

Option C is wrong because even if they describe the amount amount of vitamin C added by the company as stated in advertising campaign and the amount of copper added, we can not validate or invalidate the claim that the juice is a good source of Vitamin C.

No, options B and E aren't close. We could eliminate choice E easily because Juice Manufacturer didn't try to prove that Nutritionist's evidence is irrelevant.
_________________

Not an expert here, but trying to address the question in broader terms.
In CR questions, the devil lies in the detail. You have to carefully read and comprehend the entire question word by word.
Assuming you choose C rather than B, I will try to chime in.

What is actually the question?
Is it just The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed?
or
Is it The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument

Nutrionist's Argument : You cannot advertise that your juice is the source of Vitamin C because the copper present in your juice blocks the Vitamin C.

Option B : Correctly says that Manufacturer's argument did not address this particular issue. i.e, whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to block Vitamin C.
Option C : Not always weaken the argument. Let's consider two scenarios:
1. Vitamin C content overcomes the Copper added to the juice. Manufacturer wins. Strengthens Manufacturer's argument.
2. Vitamin C content does not overcome the Copper added to the juice. Nutritionist wins.

Does option C serve as refutation of nutritionist's argument? 50% Yes, 50% No.
So, option B it is.

Does this help you?

Hi Broall,
Can you kindly explain why not option C, but option B?
The manufacturer's argument is flawed as he/she does not address the issue on vitamin C.
In option B, we know that copper blocks vitamin C, but may be we have other ingredients in the product that can nullify the copper's effect on blocking vitamin C.

Hi, the nutritionist's main concern here is about the copper and its effect, not about the vitamin C and the amount of vit C in the product.
_________________

Hi,

Please explain why C has been ruled out??

I have the same question here, why option C is ruled out?

Hi broall,
Can you please explain why C is dropped?
If the manufacturer mentioned how much Vit C is blocked and how much is left for absorption, then also he can refute nutritionist.

broall
Hi,
i found B and E close and it was only advertising claims that makes it better choice
Could you please explain how E is incorrect

OE:

The nutritionist’s argument is that the juice made by this manufacturer is not as good a source of Vitamin C as its ads claim. The evidence that the nutritionist provides is that the process by which the company makes its juice adds copper, which blocks the absorption of Vitamin C. The manufacturer claims that the benefits of copper outweigh the costs of blocking Vitamin C absorption. This does not address the main argument made by the nutritionist, about the blocking of Vitamin C absorption being reason to remove the ad campaign, making (B) the correct answer choice.

(A) may be true, but it is not the reason that the manufacturer’s argument against the nutritionists is flawed. The manufacturer never addresses the issue of advertising, which (A) does not describe.

Similarly, (C) misidentifies the criticism leveled against the company as being related to the amount of the compounds, rather than the removal of the advertising campaign.

(D) erroneously claims that the manufacturer has addressed the main argument that the nutritionist has raised against the company, which it has not. Furthermore, the nutritionist’s argument is not about individuals, but rather about advertising.

Finally, (E) is incorrect; the manufacturer seems to think that copper is relevant and Vitamin C is not. This choice also ignores the centrality of advertising to the nutritionist’s argument.

Answer = (B)

VeritasKarishma

Can you pls hep me with such questions

I've seen that among 700 level questions of flaw in reasoning questions, I'm able to do the ones with difficulty level of 55% but not the ones of 95%. What should be my way of going about such questions

Thanks in advance!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________