Critical Reasoning

Fact: Sugar-free does not mean low in calories
Conclusion: Sugar-free wording should be prohibited because obese people think it means "low in calories."

Assumption that the author makes is that, really, the only people who buy sugar free are interested in losing weight.

ANSWER B
To weaken the argument, ATTACK the unstated assumption. If we can find a statement that goes against the idea that only people in low-calorie foods buy sugar free, the argument is weakened. This is why B is correct because it shows that not all people who read sugar free are necessarily looking for low-calories.

ANSWER E
"Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains."

Rephrased, answer E could read it doesn't really matter WHAT is on the product label, just how much it stands out.

But the argument isn't about visual prominence, i.e. what consumers see easier; the argument, and assumption made the author, talk about what motivates consumers to buy sugar free based on what the consumer infers sugar free to mean. Whether sugar free is big or small on the package doesn't really strengthen or weaken.

I always make myself verbalize exactly how an answer will weaken the argument.

So, how does the fact that visual prominence is more important than actual content weaken the assumption that because overweight people looking for low-calorie foods get confused by the term sugar free the term should be prohibited?

It doesn't. So E is wrong.

I don't agree with B. It clearly talks about certain set of the people (diabetic people). let's say total population is 100%. Out of that 75% are trying following weight-loss diet and these people do not have diabetise. Out of 100% only 10% have diabetise. In that case how B will be the answer?

What is wrong with E?

kevincanspain wrote:

prepgmat09 wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:

pnk wrote:The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as "sugar-free," based on the replacement of all sugar by artificial sweeteners, should be prohibited by law. Such a prohibition is indicated because many consumers who need to lose weight will interpret the label "sugar-free" as synonymous with "low in calories" and harm themselves by building weight-loss diets around foods labeled "sugar-free." Manufacturers of sugar-free foods are well aware of this tendency on the part of consumers.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for challenging the conclusion in the passage?
(A) Food manufacturers would respond to a ban on the label "sugar-free" by reducing the calories in sugar-free products by enough to be able to promote those products as diet foods.
(B) Individuals who are diabetic need to be able to identify products that contain no sugar by reference to product labels that expressly state that the product contains no sugar.
(C) Consumers are sometimes slow to notice changes in product labels unless those changes are themselves well advertised.
(D) Consumers who have chosen a particular weight-loss diet tend to persist with this diet if they have been warned not to expect very quick results.
(E) Exactly what appears on a product label is less important to consumer behavior than is the relative visual prominence of the different pieces of information that the label contains.

OA later

B shows that the proposed ban would have a perverse effect, whereas E merely minimizes its effect in the event that the lettering is small. Since we are not given any information regarding how prominent the letter is, E is inconclusive. Choose B

Hello Kevin,

Could you please elaborate how B has a perverse effect?

I thought B to be a strengthener. B states that diabetic people identify a product as not containing any sugar if this is expressly stated. If the label has "sugar free" written on it, then diabetic people would interpret this product to be devoid of sugar and in fact may harm themselves by cosuming the product. This would strengthen the conclusion that such labels should be prohibited.

Thanks.

Food labelled SF is indeed devoid of sugar, but not necessarily of calories

I think B says that diabetic people need to identify products by referring to the product label.
If these kinda people are gonna be using these product labels to identify the correct food, then the ban on these kinda labels should not be made.
I think E comes close but B beats E...

But option B is only diabetic patients specific and not talking about every costumer who is using sugar free,

Will it not matter ?

Even after reading all the comments i am not able to figure it out.
that why B is right, can any one please explain it.

imo B...(atfirst read the question stem wrong)

stem says if labelled "sugar-free" will be construed as "low-calorie", misleading. Therefore prohibit such bannering.
A says if ban enforced, then producers will strive to make it "low-calorie" as well an rebrand it appropriately....so strengthens...opposite answer

B says diabetic need specifically "no-sugar" or "sugar-free"..atleast diabetic don't harm themselves and do not have to be mislead...

I sometimes like to personalize the problem when I'm stuck with two strong contenders.

Disclaimer - This is strictly my approach. It may not be correct 100% of the times.

Alright, I evaluated B first. I assumed I'm Diabetic. I'm strictly told to follow a sugar-free diet. If "sugar free" labelling is prohibited, I would have no way to find food that contains no sugar. So, causes a great impact to me.

Moved to E. It says, (rewording) So as a consumer I don't find what's on label to be very important. Doesn't care. Is there, is not there, who cares? Prohibition doesn't interest me.