nightblade354 wrote:
The labeling of otherwise high-calorie food as “sugar free”, based on the replacement of all sugar by artificial sweeteners, should be prohibited by law. Such a prohibition is indicated because many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label “sugar-free” as synonymous with “with low in calorie” and harm themselves by building weight-loss diets around foods labeled “sugar-free”. Manufacturers of sugar-free foods are well aware of this tendency on the part of the consumers.
Which one of the following principles, if established, most helps to justify the conclusion in the passage?
(A) Produce labels that are literally incorrect should be prohibited by law, even if reliance on those labels is not likely to cause harm
(B) Product labels that are literally incorrect, but in such an obvious manner that no rational consumer would rely on them, should nevertheless be prohibited by law
(C) Product labels that are literally correct but cannot be interpreted by the average buyer of the product without expert help should be prohibited by law
(D) Product labels that are literally correct but will predictably be misinterpreted by some buyers of the product to their own harm should be prohibited by law
(E) Product labels that are literally correct, but only on one of two equally accurate interpretations, should be prohibited by law if buyers tend to interpret the label in the way that does not match the product’s actual properties
Powerscore official explanation-
The stimulus proposes a banning of a practice of labeling certain foods with sugar substitutes as “sugar free,” even though their other ingredients may be high-calorie. It reasons that, even though the label of “sugar free” is accurate when applied to these foods, it gives an incorrect connotation that the food as a whole is low-calorie. This incorrect connotation, even though the label itself is accurate, would lead some consumers to harm themselves by “building weight-loss diets around foods labeled 'sugar free.'” Furthermore, the manufacturers even know that people tend to misinterpret the label in this way. For these reasons, the stimulus argues, this practice should be banned.
This question asks for which principle in the answer choices, if taken to be true, would most justify (or strengthen) the conclusion. As such, first identify the conclusion; in this case, it's that the practice described above should be banned. Then, see which answer choice is 1) actually relevant to the situation described above, and 2) would provide support for the stimulus' conclusion.
Answer choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because they talk about product labels that are literally incorrect. But the product labels the stimulus describes are literally correct because they accurately describes the foods in question as sugar free—which they are.
Answer choice (C) is incorrect because even though it solves the defect in (A) and (B), it introduces a new irrelevant dimension—the expert help in interpreting the label. There is nothing in the stimulus that talks about expert help; as such, (C) is not actually relevant.
Answer choice (D) is the correct answer choice because everything mentioned in the choice is 1) relevant and 2) would help the conclusion in the stimulus. First, it mentions labels that are literally correct, which is what the stimulus talks about. Second, it mentions that these labels will be predictably misinterpreted, which the stimulus also talks about in the last sentence (“tendency on part of consumers”). Third, it mentions that the misinterpretation will harm the consumers, which the stimulus not only mentions, but is the reason why the conclusion wants the practice banned. Finally, the answer choice offers a principle—that product labels satisfying the above three conditions should be banned, which the product labels in the stimulus explicitly do. As such, if the principle is accepted, it supports the conclusion that the labels should be banned, and we have our correct answer.
Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it talks about the labels being “literally correct, but only on one of two equally accurate interpretations.” However, the stimulus never says anything about the equal accuracy of the two possible interpretations regarding the food. One interpretation, that it is high-calorie, is 100% correct. The opposite interpretation, that it is low-calorie, is 100% incorrect.
close
Updated on: 04 Feb 2019, 12:05
35%
(medium)
28%
(02:35)
wrong 
