Q11 - The labeling of otherwise high-calorie ...

[b91302310]

It's clear that (B) is correct because diabetic people need the labeling, so the labeling should not be prohibited. However, could anyone explain what's wrong with (A) ?

Thanks.

[cyruswhittaker]

The conclusion is that the labeling should be prohibited, and the reason it gives is that people might interpret them as low in calories and hence use these high-caloried foods in their weight-loss diets.

Thus, the problem is specifically that even though they aren't low-calorie foods, they might be misconstrued as such.

If A was true, then it would not challenge the conclusion that the labeling should be prohibited. (A) is saying that if the labels were prohibited, then the products could be promoted as diet foods because the calories would fit within the guidelines.

But this would seemingly be a good thing to the author! Afterall, if the problem would be resolved by taking the action suggested, then that would be right in line with what the author is arguing for.

(B), on the other hand, gives a very specific reason why such labeling should not be prohibited.

[sim.suzan]

Although I understand why (A) is not the right choice, I have one problem with choice (B). In the passage, it states "...because many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label..." So the passage is talking about people who want to lose weight in general but (B) specifically talks about "individuals who are diabetic" which is too narrow. There are many people who wants to lose weight without being diabetic.

How can (B) provide a strongest base for challenging the conclusion when it only covers only part of the target population?

[timmydoeslsat]

Although I understand why (A) is not the right choice, I have one problem with choice (B). In the passage, it states "...because many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label..." So the passage is talking about people who want to lose weight in general but (B) specifically talks about "individuals who are diabetic" which is too narrow. There are many people who wants to lose weight without being diabetic.

How can (B) provide a strongest base for challenging the conclusion when it only covers only part of the target population?

It gives us a reason to challenge the strong position taken in the argument of should be prohibited.

The author believes that no sugar labels on high calorie foods should be prohibited. Answer choice B gives us a look at another portion of people.

The argument went from discussing a problem with people who need to lose weight. If those were the only people in the world, then the conclusion would be better served. However, with there being other portions of people, those that are perhaps not needing to lose weight, then the prescription of prohibiting sugar-free labels can be construed as too strong.

[nbysosk]

I can understand how B challenges the conclusion in the passage, but could anyone explain why C cannot be the answer?

C also seems to challenge the conclusion because if consumers are slow to notice changes in product labels, there will be no point in prohibiting the "sugar-free" labeling because consumers who have been buying "sugar-free" products will continue to buy them anyway with or without the label.

Thanks!

[nmop_apisdn2]

I can understand how B challenges the conclusion in the passage, but could anyone explain why C cannot be the answer?

C also seems to challenge the conclusion because if consumers are slow to notice changes in product labels, there will be no point in prohibiting the "sugar-free" labeling because consumers who have been buying "sugar-free" products will continue to buy them anyway with or without the label.

Thanks!

I know that you posted this question a while back, but I'll step in anyway to give my opinion.

I see what you're trying to say; that there will be no point in prohibiting the "sugar free" labeling because the consumers will be too slow to notice. In other words, you're saying that the prohibition won't do it's job as effectively possible, and therefore should not be implemented.

The problem here is that it doesn't really matter if the consumers are slow to notice. I guess this sort of concern falls under the "perfect solution fallacy", in that just because it's not the perfect solution, doesn't mean that we shouldn't undertake that solution. In other words, just because consumers will be slow in seeing that the label has been removed, doesn't mean that the removing and prohibiting the label will be completely pointless.

Answer choice B makes perfect sense because it really hits hard on the underlying assumption, which is that the "sugar free" labels, even though not really "sugar free", are being misrepresented solely because of the amount of calories; and the fact that people will think that the "sugar free" label indicates that the item is low in calories. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "sugar free" label can also be useful for people who are diabetics, in that it lets them know that these items with these labels actually contain no sugar (which is what the label tells us) and that the amount of calories that someone might falsly believe an item to have is not the only consideration when it comes to that "sugar free" label.

I hope that helps. Good luck!

[ottoman]

I have a hard time understanding why E is not the right answer.

Could someone help me with this answer?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's helpful to remind yourself of the Conclusion as the "Main Issue",
i.e.
whether
"Sugar-free labeling on high calorie foods should be prohibited"
or
"Sugar-free labeling on high calorie foods should be allowed".

Then ask yourself about (E), does this help me decide?

To me, it's not directly addressing that conversation. It's more about the strategy of how to maximize your influence on the consumer.

(E) says that HOW it's displayed is more important in terms of influencing behavior than WHAT is said.

In order to make (E) help us make a decision on whether or not to prohibit sugar-free labeling, I imagine you were thinking, "Hey, you don't need to worry about getting rid of the sugar-free label; after all, people are being influenced by how the packaging looks, not what it says."

There's a big problem with this line of thinking:
(E) says people are being influenced MORE by how the packaging looks, not ONLY by how it looks ... (E) does NOT tell us that "what appears on a product label" has no influence.

Maybe "intellectual stimulation" has more influence on you wanting to go to law school than "making big bucks afterwards" does. But that doesn't mean that "making big bucks afterwards" isn't still an important PART of your motivation.

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

I eliminated (C) and (E) because they seem to simply not affect the conclusion and, if it doesn't affect the conclusion, it really cannot weaken it.

(C) ~well advertised → slow to notice changes. This doesn't seem to do much because we don't actually know whether or not these products would or wouldn't be well advertised. And even if they were NOT well advertised, who cares if some consumers don't notice the changes immediately? Does this mean that the practice should be prohibited? That seems a little much.

(D) This seems to say that, no matter what, the actually product label doesn't matter anyway. If this doesn't matter, then why should or shouldn't the practice be prohibited?

In short, I thought that we would have to have a really good reason in order to say that this practice should or shouldn't be prohibited by law. (C) and (D) simply don't provide us with that good reasoning.

(B) does though because it shows that having the product labeling prohibited would actually have really bad consequences: diabetics wouldn't be able to identify what products they can or cannot have!

[Jdanz653]

It seems as if this answer is just attacking the conclusion but not really the argument as a whole. I was expecting an answer choice that referred to those who needed to loose weight. Can someone please give some clarification? Thanks!

[anurag111284]

It seems as if this answer is just attacking the conclusion but not really the argument as a whole. I was expecting an answer choice that referred to those who needed to loose weight. Can someone please give some clarification? Thanks!

The correct answer B is not attacking the conclusion per se. It is attacking the reasoning, i.e. the connection between premises and conclusion by exposing an assumption made by the author. The assumption being: consumers trying to lose weight are the only ones that matter in deciding prohibition on labelling. With B introduced into the argument, someone considering the author's argument for prohibition has at least two types of consumers to think about, those who benefit from labelling and those who do not. May be the diabetes consumers' interests outweigh those of the weight loss consumers. If so, it no longer follows that labelling "should be prohibed by law". The argument thus stands 'weakened' (not refuted).

One could think of a weakener that focused on weight loss consumers. Something that suggests that 'the harm caused by labelling to such people outweights the benefits of labelling to them.' This is a potential line of attack. But it NEED NOT be the only line of attack since there are multiple assumptions here and therefore multiple attack points.

[MarkR495]

I actually incorrectly answered this question twice. My first go I answered (E), which I believe is incorrect because the basis of the argument is about consumers being harmed by the labeling of products as "sugar free", and that prohibiting these labels should be implemented. So prohibition of "sugar free" labeling because "sugar free" labeling can harm consumers of the product. How does the importance of labeling to consumers vs. how its displayed affect this argument? It doesn't. What is displayed may be less important than how it's displayed, but provides nothing on how getting rid of "sugar free" labels would actually cause more harm than good, because if you prohibit "sugar free" labels, you will supposedly save consumers from harming themselves. We need some scenario where this doesn't hold true.

My second time through, I chose (C). This answer choice is incorrect for the same reason as stated above. It doesn't provide an underlying reason how prohibiting the label "sugar free" could actually cause more harm than good. It is looking at how consumers react to certain changes. This isn't proof that consumers will well-being is at stake, which if proven, would undermine the authors argument.

(B) does exactly what we are trying to do. It provides an overlooked possibility to how getting rid of the labeling would actually harm consumers of the product potentially more than if you were to keep it. Maybe the implications of banning "sugar free" actually harm diabetics more than weight loss consumers? Or maybe harming even a small % of diabetics is enough to throw the authors idea completely out of the window.

This question is only looking for the strongest basis, not a full proof statement to challenge the authors conclusion.

[HeL780]

Conclusion of argument: the labeling of high-calorie foods as "sugar-free" should be prohibited.
To weak the conclusion, we need to indicate: the labeling should not be prohibited.

A) If food manufacturers respond to the ban with the action to promote those products, the ban is actually good and should be continued. That's why we can't choose A.

B) If some people specifically need to identify food with no sugar, then labeling is legitimate and reasonable. That's why B is good.

C) it support the argument.

D) This one is tricky because it says that whether we allow the labeling is not important. OFS.

E) Totally OFS.