Critical Reasoning

Nutritionist: Your company's fruit-processing technologies add unacceptable amounts of copper to the orange juice you sell. Because copper blocks the absorption of Vitamin C, your advertising campaign claiming that your juice is a good source of Vitamin C is faulty and should be removed.

Juice Manufacturer: Some amount of copper is necessary for optimal health. Recent studies have shown that as many as 25 percent of Americans do not get enough copper in their diets; therefore, the benefits of the copper that our process adds to the juice outweigh the costs of any Vitamin C that it may block.

The juice manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the nutritionist's argument because it

A relies on the unfounded assumption that copper may be as good for health as Vitamin C.
B does not address the issue of whether sufficient amounts of copper are present to invalidate its advertising claims.
C fails to describe how much Vitamin C the juice company adds to each bottle, as stated in the advertising campaign, and how much is blocked from absorption by copper.
D addresses the nutritionist's argument in general terms, rather than in terms of the health of individuals.
E shows that the nutritionist's evidence about copper is irrelevant but fails to demonstrate any flaws in the nutritionist's assumptions.

What's the best approach to determine the answer? Can any experts help?