Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine

Question

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specifed amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.

Candy manufacturer: 0ur manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.

The candy manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate's argument because it

(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacturer is enough to keep people addicted
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(D) treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer's candy in general
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound

saviofernanz · Accepted Answer

This official question test the  straw man  error of reasoning

Straw Man 
This error occurs when an author attempts to attack an opponent’s position by ignoring the actual statements made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process. In figurative terms, a “straw” argument is built up which is then easier for the author to knock down

Often this error is accompanied by the phrase “what you’re saying is” or “if I understand you correctly,” which are used to preface the refashioned and weakened argument. Here is an example:

Politician A: “The platform proposed by my party calls for a moderate increase in taxes on those individuals making over $20,000 per year, and then taking that money and using it to rebuild the educational system.”
Politician B: “But what you’re saying is that everyone should pay higher taxes, and so your proposal is unfair.”
In the example above, Politician B recasts Politician A’s argument unfairly. Politician A indicated the tax increase would apply to those with incomes over $20,000 where Politician B distorts that to “everyone should pay higher taxes.”

Here are examples of how this error of reasoning can be described in answer choices:
 “refutes a distorted version of an opposing position” 
“portrays the politician’s views as more extreme than they really are”

crick20002002 · Answer

+1 for A.

The response by candy manufacturer falls in the category of Straw man - It simply ignores the argument made by the advocate.

Crick

DeeptiM · Answer

Per Consumer health advocate, the amount of Caffeine is the cause of consumers addiction to the candy..
Candy manufacturer did mention that less caffeine is used however, his reasoning is flawed because he didnt mention if it is enough to make the people addicted..hence A

phew...hope um able to express my thoughts well...

PrincessZ · Answer

Can someone please clarify the following. I really need to understand why/ where my thinking is wrong here.

A) While A points out to a logical flaw, it does not seem entirely right to me. 1)yes it does fail to address the issue, 2)but, the health advocate is not accusing the manufacturer of having 'enough' caffeine, yet of the 'intent' to keep consumers addicted.

C) The health advocate does wrongly answer by saying that each and every candy bar contains a uniform amount of caffeine: 'less caffeine in each candy bar than in the unprocessed...'

Where am I going wrong here? Please Help!

zerosleep · Answer

The argument is based on the premise that candy bars contains caffeine which,as per he advocate, can make people addicitive to it. Here, the advocate is not referring to the effects or how much caffeine is present in each candy bar. He just simply assumes that presence of caffeiene is enough to make people addicitve. His main motive is to show- "candy bars having caffeine is making people addict"

The company manufacturer just responded by saying there is lesser caffeine in their candy bar than in unprocessed cocoa beans. However, he does not mention whether that amount can make people addicitive or not. Hence, simply by stating that there is less caffeine does not refute the advocate conclusion that people might get addicitve to their candy bars (because of caffeine).

I hope it helps. , I will be glad to discuss further if you need more explanation.

sarasanta · Answer

Choice A for me.

Here is the structure of the argument:

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a  u]specifed amount of caffeine  . Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.

Structure: Amount of Caffeine -- Chocolate bars -- Customer

Candy manufacturer: 0ur manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.

Less Caffeine -- Chocolate Bars < Cacao beans -- Chocolate Bars

Amount of caffeine should be in the scope of the argument. Hence choice A is correct.

Skywalker18 · Answer

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.

Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.

The candy manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate's argument because it

(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacturer is enough to keep people addicted - Correct 
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine - Incorrect 
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process - Incorrect - loss of caffeine is not discussed
(D) treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer's candy in general - Out of scope
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound - Incorrect

Answer A

pikolo2510 · Answer

Can folks explain why option E is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

AnubhavK · Answer

The answer choice 'E' is incorrect as the manufacturer does not contradict the accusation, but rather avoids it. Hope this helps.

akshay068 · Answer

If you read the first line, the Advocate suggests that the company is adding caffeine in the candy bars to which the manufacturer replies that the caffeine in unprocessed beans is much higher. I am still confused with the option E. Can someone please help as to how my thinking process is off?

yonseiglobalstudent · Answer

Option E states that the candy manufacturer contradicts the health advocate's conclusion. "Contradiction" is the denial of the truth of (a statement), especially by asserting the opposite ." So, for E to be true, the manufacturer would have needed to say something about how the company does not add caffeine to the chocolate or assert that the added caffeine is not enough to be addictive. In other words, he would need to negate the accusations directly. However, his response essentially says "the amount of caffeine in the chocolate bars is less than the amount in cacao beans". Even if that claim were true, it doesn't negate the accusation that the company adds caffeine or the accusation that the company wants to keep customers addicted. So, the answer is (A) because the manufacturer "fails to address the issue". He said something completely unrelated to the issue. Hope this helps

ueh55406 · Answer

I agree that A is slightly better, but any strong reason why B is incorrect?

(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine.

if some contains more caffeine than candy bar and some cocoa beans contains less caffeine than the candy bars than it does makes the argument flawed, doesn't it?

it's saying: " you know, my candy bar has low caffeine than all the unprocessed cocoa beans which are used to make the candy itself ". But he'd wrong in saying that, as there are beans which have more caffeine.

thanks for the help

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Notice that "0ur manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made," is a simple statement of fact.

That statement means that, if the beans used to make a bar contain x caffeine, that bar contains less than x caffeine.

So, it doesn't matter that some beans contain more caffeine than others, because the bars contain less caffeine than whatever beans they are made from contain, every time.

MalachiKeti · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep   MartyMurray 
Can you help me understand if we were simply analysing this argument could it be interpreted as following
- The bars are not made from cocoa at all so comparison is useless - and as caffeine still exists the addiction still exists
- The bars are made from cocoa and have reduced caffeine in manufacturing process but as caffeine is still not completely 0, the addiction still persist.

MartyMurray · Answer

Neither the consumer health advocate nor the candy manufacturer suggests that the bars are not made from chocolate. How "real" the bars are is not considered.

Also, the point is not that the caffeine merely "still exists." Rather, the point is that the company "adds caffeine"
 
Yes, the caffeine exists, but the point is not that it's "not completely 0." The point is that, while the amount of caffeine is smaller than than the amount in the unprocessed beans, some has been added by the company.

So, the key point is that the caffeine has been added and that the fact that the company adds caffeine indicates, not just that there is caffeine in the bar, but that the company is purposely getting people addicted to the chocolate.

SnorLax_7 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray , Hope you are well !

Could you please explain the valid reasoning of why we wont opt Option E ? No Doubt A is winner, but still want to know.

Kindly Help

Thanks !

MartyMurray · Answer

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.

Candy manufacturer: 0ur manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.

Reading the argument, we see that the consumer health advocate's reasoning is that, since the company adds caffeine, which is addictive, to the chocolate bars, it's apparent that the company is seeking to keep customers addicted to the company's chocolate bars.

Then the candy manufacturer responds by saying that there is "less caffeine" in the bars than in the beans from which the bars are made.

A couple things might jump out at us with regard to the candy manufacturer's response.

One is that the fact that saying that there is less caffeine in the bars doesn't really serve to address the fact that the company adds caffeine. Sure, there's less, but even so, the fact that the company adds caffeine still appears to indicate that the company is seeking to keep customers addicted to the bars.

A second issue is that "less" is not the same as "little." So, while there is less caffeine in the bars than in the beans, there could still be in the bars a lot of caffeine, or at least enough caffeine to keep people addicted.

The candy manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate's argument because it

This is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will accurately describe a way in which the candy manufacturer's response is flawed.

(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacturer is enough to keep people addicted

This choice may not be ideal because the main flaw in the manufacturer's response is not what this choice describes. Rather, the main flaw is that the response doesn't address the fact that it appears that the company wants to keep people addicted because the company adds caffeine.

At the same time, this choice works OK since it's true that, in saying that the bars contain "less caffeine" than the beans, the manufacturer fails to address the fact that "less caffeine" may still be enough caffeine to keep people addicted.

So, this choice accurately describes a flaw in the manufacturer's response.

Keep.

(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine

Notice that the manufacturer's response works regardless of whether all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine. After all, even if they don't contain a uniform amount, it could still be that the company's chocolate contains less caffeine than the beans from which it's made.

So, since the response works even if it's not true that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine, the response does not assume that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine.

Eliminate.

(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process

This choice accurately describes a characteristic of the candy manufacturer's response since it's true that the response  does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process.

At the same time, this choice is not the correct answer since the fact that the response does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process does not make the response flawed.

After all, regardless of how the caffeine is lost, it's lost, and as a result there is, as the manufacturer says, less caffeine in the chocolate than in the beans from which it's made.

Eliminate.

(D) treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer's candy in general

This choice accurately describes a characteristic of the candy manufacturer's response since it's true that the response  treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar.

At the same time, this choice is not the correct answer because the fact that the candy manufacturer's response treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar is not a flaw in the response. After all, the consumer health advocate's argument is indeed about the amount of caffeine in each bar.

Eliminate.

(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound

This choice is tempting because we may consider what the candy manufacturer says devoid of any good reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound.

At the same time, the truth is that, while what the manufacturer does not give any any  good  reason to believe the advocate's reasoning to be unsound, the manufacturer does give  what the manufacturer considers  a reason. After all, it appears that the manufacturer believes the fact that there is less caffeine in the bars than in the beans from which they are made to be a reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound.

So, even if that's not a good reason to believe the reasoning to be unsound, it is a reason that the manufacturer gives.

Thus, it's not accurate to say that the manufacturer contradicts the health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  A

Mosaib · Answer

Correct Answer: (A)

The consumer health advocate’s argument is:

The company adds caffeine to each chocolate bar.

Caffeine is highly addictive.

Therefore, the company intends to keep customers addicted.

The manufacturer responds by saying that the finished candy bars contain less caffeine than unprocessed cacao beans.

However, this response misses the point. The advocate’s claim is about whether the amount of caffeine in the candy bars is sufficient to promote addiction, not whether it is less than the amount found in raw cacao beans. Even if the bars contain less caffeine than raw beans, they could still contain enough to be addictive.

So the manufacturer fails to address whether the caffeine level in the candy bars is enough to keep people addicted, which is the central issue.

That is exactly what choice (A) states.

Why the others are wrong:

(B) Irrelevant — the argument does not depend on uniform caffeine levels in cacao beans.

(C) Irrelevant — the exact manufacturing loss amount does not address addiction.

(D) Mischaracterizes the argument — the advocate is clearly talking about the product generally.

(E) Incorrect — the manufacturer does give a reason (comparison to raw beans), even if it’s irrelevant.

✅ Final Answer: (A)

Usernamevisible · Answer

Speed lesson

Fast high-scorers would mentally reduce this to:

Advocate:
“added caffeine → intended addiction”

Manufacturer:
“less caffeine than beans”

Immediate question:
“But is final amount STILL addictive?”

That instantly points toward: A

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine

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