Critical Reasoning

The candy manufacturer's claim that employee
"theft" costs the company thousands of dollars
a year in potential sales is greatly overstated.
Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid
for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who
would not be willing to buy an entire box of it
anyway.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the
argument above?
(A) The workers eat only defective candies
that could not be sold.
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost
potential sales to nonemployees.
(C) A few workers account for most of the
candy that is eaten but not paid for.
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees
are consumed during the holiday season,
when production outputs are at their
highest.
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees
is only a small fraction of the candy sold
by the company.


B

Why is A not applicable

The author is arguing that employees taking candies is no big deal--that it doesn't cost the company anything.

(A) back this up by telling us that the candies they're eating couldn't have been sold anyways. So (A) strengthens the argument (rather than weakening it). Opposite answer choices are a common wrong answer trap in strengthen/weaken questions!

Confused between D and B. Doesn't B give the same info which is allready stated in the passage : The author acknowledges that theft happens... what he says is that it is overstated. Doesn't D provide the weakener where it is reasoned that if production outputs are the highest then it means demand is highest and if theft is highest in that period it implies it has the maximum impact?

Please advise. Really confused why this line of reasoning is wrong.

B states that this "theft" by the employees may harm the possible sales to Non employees..so this is the added weakener.
D states that "theft" occurs during holiday season, when anyways the production is at its highest, so the damage will be less not more.

saviogmat wrote:Confused between D and B. Doesn't B give the same info which is allready stated in the passage : The author acknowledges that theft happens... what he says is that it is overstated. Doesn't D provide the weakener where it is reasoned that if production outputs are the highest then it means demand is highest and if theft is highest in that period it implies it has the maximum impact?

Please advise. Really confused why this line of reasoning is wrong.