Consumer advocate

is it (C)?

akhp77 wrote:Source: MGMAT

Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.

The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

A: Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
B: All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
C: The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
D: The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
E: It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.

Please explain.

Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.

The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

A: Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores. (situation before the ban has no bearing on conclusion. We are concerned about recently started ban)

B: All natural compounds are safe for human consumption. (too strong + if its true that all natural compounds are safe means ban is unresonable...weaking the argument)

C: The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious. (softer + true....look at the shift: Ephedra..hv grave side effects; Echinacea ..hv side effects => grave is missing in case of Echinacea...this option bridges that missing link)

D: The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds. (not concerned about whether govt hv the authority or not)

E: It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public. (unreasonable or not...we are not concerned)

[spoiler]IMO: C[/spoiler]
Thanks

posted earlier

pnk wrote:B: All natural compounds are safe for human consumption. (too strong + if its true that all natural compounds are safe means ban is unresonable...weaking the argument)

if all natural compounds, as you say, are safe, then the consumer advocate's argument that the ban is unreasonable is strengthened, NOT weakened.

ALL natural compounds are not discussed. for the ban to be unreasonable/unjustified, ephedra HAS to be equally (or less) harmful than echinacea.

if ephedra is more harmful than echinacea, then the ban is justified.

Opinion: Ephedra is having similar properties as Echinacea

A) Keep it open...sale used to happen
B) No..this is opposing the argument and govt
C) Matching my opinion
D) We are not supposed to say what govt can do.. Out of scope
E) Waste of an option...ignore this

I am going with C

IMO " C

HSPA wrote:B) No..this is opposing the argument and govt

you've gotten the argument/conclusion wrong. the consumer advocate's argument IS in BOLD here:
Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable.

the advocate opposes the govt's ban. B says All natural compounds are safe for human consumption. this is outside the scope as only ephedra and echinacea are discussed. considering the wrong side of the argument the conclusion can cause fatal errors, esp. on strengthen/weaken types in which you'll end up choosing the polar opposite of what is asked!