Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted. Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made. The candy manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate’s argument because it
(F) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(G) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine
(H) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(I) treats the consumer heal advocate’s argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer’s candy in general
(J) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate’s conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate’s reasoning is unsound
In the dialogue, the candy manufacturer tries to rebut the claim that caffeine is added to chocolate candy bars in order to keep consumers addicted. The rebuttal is that the caffeine added is restoring to the product caffeine that was lost during manufacture. The question asks you to identify why this rebuttal is inadequate.
does anyone else too find the bolded portion weird ? the Manufacturer says something and the OG interprets something else .
(F) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(G) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine
(H) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(I) treats the consumer heal advocate’s argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer’s candy in general
(J) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate’s conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate’s reasoning is unsound
In the dialogue, the candy manufacturer tries to rebut the claim that caffeine is added to chocolate candy bars in order to keep consumers addicted. The rebuttal is that the caffeine added is restoring to the product caffeine that was lost during manufacture. The question asks you to identify why this rebuttal is inadequate.
does anyone else too find the bolded portion weird ? the Manufacturer says something and the OG interprets something else .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
