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

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.[/quote]
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!