chesstitans wrote:
Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.
Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.
The juice manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist’s argument because it
A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist’s argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist’s evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist’s assumptions.
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)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep