The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as “sugar-free,” based on

Question

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods 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 “low in calories” 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 consumers.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for challenging the conclusion in the passage?

(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label “sugar-free” by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods.

(B) Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar.

(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels unless those changes are themselves well advertised.

(D) Consumers who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect very quick results.

(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Consider the structure of the argument: The author concludes that “the labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as “sugar-free,” based on the replacement of all sugar by artificial sweeteners, should be prohibited by law.” To support this, he/she notes that “many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label ‘sugar-free’ as synonymous with ‘low in calories.’” Ultimately, this harms those trying to lose weight as they build their diet around foods labeled “sugar-free.” Manufacturers are aware consumers’ tendency to make this error. The argument seems to imply that manufacturers are deliberately taking advantage of and misleading consumers in an attempt to boost sales. This leads the author to conclude that the practice of labeling high-calorie foods as “sugar-free” should be banned. With that in mind, the question asks that we find an answer choice that gives reason to challenge the conclusion of the passage. In other words, which answer choice gives us reason to believe that we should not prohibit labeling foods as sugar-free? If food manufacturers would respond to the ban by reducing calories, then consumers attempting to lose weight would benefit from the ban. Rather than providing a basis to challenge the author’s conclusion that the “sugar-free” label should be banned, this strengthens the author’s argument by providing an additional benefit of the ban. Eliminate (A). that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar. The author's reasoning behind his/her conclusion is that people who are trying to lose weight are harming themselves because of the sugar-free labels. But what if there are other people who benefit from the labels? (B) tells us that there is such a group of people. Diabetics need to know whether the product is sugar-free. So, even if the labels are unhelpful for people who are trying to lose weight, they are very helpful for diabetics. This new information provides a strong challenge to the conclusion that the labels should be banned. Let's keep (B). Perhaps (C) indicates that it will take some time for the ban to have its intended effect. But even if consumers are SOMETIMES slow to notice changes, they will eventually notice the changes. And this could be an instance in which they are not slow to notice changes. So, (C) does not present a valid challenge to the argument, and we can eliminate it. (D) indicates that, when consumers who need to lose weight begin a sugar-free diet, they will persist with the diet as long as they have been warned not to expect quick results. But the author is not interested in whether consumers continue with sugar-free diets. Rather, he/she is concerned with the implications of a “sugar-free” label on otherwise high-calorie foods. For that reason, (D) does not challenge the passage. Eliminate (D). (E) indicates that what appears on a label is less important than how something appears on a label. So, in the context of the passage, whether “sugar-free” appears on a label is less important than the prominence of “sugar-free” on the label. But whether “sugar-free” appear on a label could still be important. And (E) doesn’t change the fact that manufacturers seem to be misleading consumers. So, (E) provides little basis to challenge the conclusion, and we can eliminate it. (B) is the only answer choice remaining, and it is correct. I'm going to eat some real sugar now, lightly seasoned with lots of butter and chocolate.

I hope that helps!

Kratul412 · Answer

Can someone explain this why not e

Posted from my mobile device

GptShubham · Answer

Not sure what is wrong with E, can someone explain?

Bhaskar101 · Answer

Think of it this way : Diabetics need to know if a product contains sugar or not, so this helps them ( It's sugar free, so they are not harmed in anyway and this actually weakens the conclusion that the label is misrepresenting.
Option E on the otherhand doesn't weaken at all, it just talks about consumer behavior/ info about ingredients. For all we know, they may not even comprehend what these labels are meant to represent. While option E may or maynot weaken, option B definitely weakens( even though only for the diabetics).

Bhaskar

NiftyNiffler · Answer

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods 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 “low in calories” 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 consumers.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for challenging the conclusion in the passage?

(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label “sugar-free” by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods.  -- This still helps as the calorific intake is less, however small it is

(B) Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar.  -- CORRECT, this gives an alternative explanation that "Sugar-free" is just not "low-in-calorie" to some segment of people. They have other genuine reason not to eat sugar and not just for losing weight

(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels unless those changes are themselves well advertised.  -- As per passage the labels are already well-advertised. So irrelevant.

(D) Consumers who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect very quick results.  -- We don't know if they were warned about "quick results" or not.

(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.  -- This has a lot of conditional not covered in the passage. We don't know if there are any different pieces of information and the relative importance those with product label

So,  B  is the answer.

Pranjal3107 · Answer

Hi, Can you explain the argument i.e. what exactly are we trying to weaken ? I could not understand it at all.

ChuHoaiNam2505 · Answer

Conclusion: The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as “sugar-free" should be prohibited by law
Reason: Because doing so would lead people misunderstand.
Weaken: We need to find an answer that, if it is added to the argument, it will make us think again.
A, Cannot, The way manufacture responds to the ban does not matter
B. Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar. -> People need a benchmark, it means that people need a products that is labelled as "sugar -free", if we ban this, diabetic individuals can not able to identify products that contain no sugar-> Weaken
C, D -> clearly out, it can not make us think again
E. Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains. Not weaken at all. For example, Watching violent movie affects to children behavior less than playing violent video games. So we should not ban watching violent movie. It sounds not right, right?

hellothere88 · Answer

but artificial sweetener is also bad for diabetics - same with sugar, so the labeling doesnt help?can elaborate on that?

sssanskaar · Answer

I was torn between options A and B. Although I know that option A is more of a "response" instead of a "challenge", which the question is asking for, I ultimately chose option A over B because option B talks ONLY about "diabetics" - a very specific sub-group of people-, whereas the argument talks about people who are concerned about weight loss in general.

Experts, please help. That was the only reason why I eliminated B and chose A.

CJCC9WA11 · Answer

please explain why its not E OA seems to be little odd

svasan05 · Answer

Hi

The conclusion of the passage is: The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as “sugar-free” based on the replacement of all sugar by artificial sweeteners, should be prohibited by law.

The premise on which this is based can be arrived at by asking the question "why?". The response, which can be identified using the marker "because", would be:

i) Many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label “sugar-free” as synonymous with “low in calories” and harm themselves by building weight-loss diets around foods labeled “sugar-free.” 
ii) Manufacturers of sugar-free foods are well aware of this tendency on the part of consumers.

Therefore, in short:

Customers will misinterpret "sugar free" to mean "low calorie" and consume such food as part of weight-loss diets --> Ban "sugar-free" labelling.

We are required to weaken the conclusion.

Option (E) states: Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.

This only gives the  relative  importance of labels via-a-vis visual prominence of information. The reasoning present in the argument still holds - that since customers misinterpret the "sugar-free" label, the label should be banned. Option (E) only tells us that customers may be  more  influenced by another factor than just the label - they are still influenced by the label and hence the conclusion holds. Hence, option (E) is not a weakener.

Hope this helps.

bidskamikaze · Answer

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods 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 “low in calories” 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 consumers.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for challenging the conclusion in the passage?
  This is a weaken question.

(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label “sugar-free” by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods.
-  This is somewhat strengthening the argument.

(B) Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar.
-  CORRECT. This gives a reason why prohibiting the use of "sugar free" can lead to negative consequences.

(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels unless those changes are themselves well advertised.
-  TRAP. Even if consumers are slow, we don't know whether they are slow enough to not get swayed and interpret the label “sugar-free” as synonymous with “low in calories”.

(D) Consumers who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect very quick results.
-  This strengthens the argument.

(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.
-  TRAP. we don't know how manufacturers display "sugar free" on the products.

Answer B.

nikitamaheshwari · Answer

The author's reasoning behind his/her conclusion is that people who are trying to lose weight are harming themselves because of the sugar-free labels. But what if there are other people who benefit from the labels? (B) tells us that there is such a group of people. Diabetics need to know whether the product is sugar-free. So, even if the labels are unhelpful for people who are trying to lose weight, they are very helpful for diabetics. This new information provides a strong challenge to the conclusion that the labels should be banned. Let's keep (B). Perhaps (C) indicates that it will take some time for the ban to have its intended effect. But even if consumers are SOMETIMES slow to notice changes, they will eventually notice the changes. And this could be an instance in which they are not slow to notice changes. So, (C) does not present a valid challenge to the argument, and we can eliminate it. (D) indicates that, when consumers who need to lose weight begin a sugar-free diet, they will persist with the diet as long as they have been warned not to expect quick results. But the author is not interested in whether consumers continue with sugar-free diets. Rather, he/she is concerned with the implications of a “sugar-free” label on otherwise high-calorie foods. For that reason, (D) does not challenge the passage. Eliminate (D). (E) indicates that what appears on a label is less important than how something appears on a label. So, in the context of the passage, whether “sugar-free” appears on a label is less important than the prominence of “sugar-free” on the label. But whether “sugar-free” appear on a label could still be important. And (E) doesn’t change the fact that manufacturers seem to be misleading consumers. So, (E) provides little basis to challenge the conclusion, and we can eliminate it. (B) is the only answer choice remaining, and it is correct. I'm going to eat some real sugar now, lightly seasoned with lots of butter and chocolate.

I hope that helps! GMATNinja VeritasKarishma - Can we say that in a way option choice E s attacking the premise itself? We are already told that sugar free label is misleading one set of people. Option Choice E says that what is more important to the customers - i.e visual prominence. But irrespective, they are misleading one set of customers who associate sugar free tag with low calories. Thanks

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:

Many consumers who need to lose weight interpret the label “sugar-free” as synonymous with “low in calories” and harm themselves
Manufacturers of sugar-free foods are well aware of this tendency on the part of consumers.

Conclusion: Don't allow manufacturers to label high calorie foods as sugar free only because they replace all sugar by artificial sweeteners

We need to weaken the conclusion. The conclusion states that don't allow manufacturers to label "sugar free" if the snack is high in calories. We need to say why labelling should not be eliminated.

(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label “sugar-free” by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods.

If the food manufacturers will respond to the ban by reducing calories in those products and then label them "sugar free", it will meet the author's objective. Then implementing the ban makes sense. This does not weaken the conclusion.

(B) Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar.

Correct. This tells us why sugar free products need the sugar free labels. Even if some people will assume them to be low in calories, the diabetics need to know which products do not have sugar. Hence the label is required by a certain set of people. This weakens our conclusion.

(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels unless those changes are themselves well advertised.

Irrelevant.

(D) Consumers who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect very quick results.

Irrelevant.

(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.

This says that visual prominence plays an even bigger role in defining consumer behaviour i.e. say "sugar free" written in large letters across the front may impress consumers more than the same thing written at the back in normal letters. But the fact that visual prominence plays an even bigger role does not impact our conclusion which says that labelling plays a role in consumer behaviour.

nikitamaheshwari  - It is not conflicting with the premises. The premises do not say that what is mentioned on the labels is the most important factor that impacts consumer behaviour. We are just told that it impacts consumer behaviour. If other things impact even more, it is irrelevant to our argument.

Answer (B)

unraveled · Answer

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods 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 “low in calories” 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 consumers.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for challenging the conclusion in the passage?

(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label “sugar-free” by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods. - WRONG. Conclusion holds(it has some benefit as it leads to decrease in sugar content) as the behaviour would eventually persist.

(B) Individuals  who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels  that expressly state that the product contains no sugar. - CORRECT. If labels help this category of people then certainly the conclusion stands to lose, as no labels means these people stand to lose.

(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels  unless those changes are themselves well advertised . - WRONG. Eventually, change happens but at what pace. Not quantifiable, however, it challenges with minimal force.

(D)  Consumers  who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet  tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect  very quick results. - WRONG. Labels or no labels the behaviour persists so this does not impact the conclusion. Somewhat takes side with conclusion.

(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is  less important to consumer behavior  than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains. - WRONG. If consumers behaviour does not change then this choice does nothing at all, in fact, it rather strengthens in some ways.

Answer B.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as “sugar-free,” based on

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as “sugar-free,” based on

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards