Critical Reasoning

Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra, a chemical supplement that stimulates the activity of the nervous system but may also result in serious cardiac problems. Therefore, this drink is harmful to consumer health and should be banned from distribution in our state.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the consumer advocate?

a. The new soft drink will soon be introduced into mass production.
b. Consumers are unlikely to enjoy the taste of Mango Paradise because of the high amount of Ephedra contained in the drink.
c. Any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is harmful to consumer health.
d. The Consumer Advocate is not affiliated with the producer of Mango Paradise.
e Most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will eventually experience serious cardiac problems.
OA is C
Explain how to eliminate E

As assumption should be tested with the negation test. Ask yourself, if you negate option E and plug it into the original question, will it negate the argument?

In other words, even if "most consumers who drink Mango Paradise will NOT eventually experience serious cardiac problems" (that is, some consumers may, but not most) does that still not make a valid case for banning the product? Should you only ban a product if MOST consumers will develop medical problems (and not ban it if its affecting only some)? The answer would be, even if SOME people will develop cardiac problems from the product, it should still be banned. Hence option E fails the negation test. Therefore thats not the answer.

Lets apply the same test for C.

If "any drink that contains at least 2.5% of Ephedra is NOT harmful to consumer health" and this particular drink contains only 2.5% (which is not harmful), then the conclusion (that the product should be banned) becomes invalid. Hence C is the answer.

When author says unconditionally that if 2.5% is the quotient available in drink , its gonna be harmful. Option C is the best... if he had put some other catch e.g. harmful to males/females/ area population etc.. may be we could explore other options.