The fact that several consumers have claimed illness

[sandeep.19+man]

Consumer advocates argue that the coating found on non-stick cookware contains harmful chemicals that are released into the air when the cookware is heated above a certain temperature. The manufacturer of the cookware acknowledges this hazard but assures consumers that the temperature threshold is much higher than would ever be needed for food preparation and therefore no special precautions need be taken in using the cookware.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claims of the manufacturer?

A* The chemicals released by the coating can linger in the air for days
B* Empty cookware left on the flame often reaches exceptionally high temperatures.
C* Several consumers have already claimed illness as a result of using the cookware.
D* The manufacturer did not test the cookware for this phenomenon until consumer advocates brought the issue to its attention.
E* There are effective non-stick coatings that do not release toxins when heated.

OA: B (highlight text)

Question:
1. I am confused between B and C. I remember having done other questions in which options similar to B were marked out of scope because "exceptionally high temperatures" is not equivalent to "heated above a certain temperature".

2. Moreover, the explanation given for C is that "The fact that several consumers have claimed illness as a result of using the cookware does not mean that their illnesses were in fact from the cookware; the food may have been contaminated or the illness may have resulted from something entirely unrelated to cooking. Without proof of the claim, this choice is not relevant."
Whereas option C clearly states that the illness was a direct result of using the cookware [if the cookware were not used, the illness wouldnt have occured]. Hence, I think your explanation directly contradicts C.

Could the tutors clarify options B and C.

PS: I saw the same question posted on the GMAT prep folder, but the question seems to be locked and there was no response from any of the instructors.

Thanks in advance

[tim]

Thanks for bringing up the apparent contradiction. The explanation for C should have said that the fact there were illness reports "does not mean that their illnesses were in fact from the CHEMICALS" rather than "from the cookware". Remember, the company is trying to deny that the chemicals are trouble; if C can’t establish a link between the cookware and the chemicals, it doesn’t deflate the company’s claim..

As for B, please do not fall for the myth that out of scope is always indicative of a wrong answer choice. For certain types of questions an out of scope answer is actually desirable or even necessary. Go back and review for yourself when out of scope indicates a wrong answer; if you got confused on this the first time through, you’ll probably pick up on several other things you missed or mixed up when you go back to review this material..