irenewerwerwer Wrote:Sorry but I still don't see why C incorrect:
since the label claims including only natural ingredients but Gilbert finds it contain aa synthesized the company, therefore it not wholly natural--the label is mistaken.
Then if the label is printed before switching from natural sugar to synthesized aa--then the label is not mistaken: it indeed includes natural sugar then? Therefore strengthens Sabina's claim. But it has nothing to do with "aa also found in natural sugarcane".
I'm going to see if this clears up your confusion.
1. so, label was printed BEFORE the cookie company switched. That means, Gilbert's right. Cookies DO have synthesized ingredient and NOT ONLY NATURAL INGREDIENT. does it matter if it was printed before the switch or not? The fact is, the cookies now DO have this synthesized ingredient. Yes,it may not have in the past, but it does,so it actually strengthens Gilbert's argument.
2. Sabina says found occuring "NATURALLY in sugarcane".
Gilbert says " ONLY NATURAL INGREDIENT"
Those two statements are quite different if you look at it. So, if you take a look at E, it covers those two aspects and connects that "All substances that do occur NATURALLY are considered NATURAL." (which supports Sabina's- aa is NATURALLY occuring in sugarcane, so it's natural)
Hope that helped!