Nutritionist: Your company’s fruit-processing technologies

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.

OA B

Source: Magoosh
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:01 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

We first need to know the standpoint of each parties concerning the argument to correctly address this question.
Here, the Nutritionist is more concerned about points the company present in their advertisement.

Option A :- INCORRECT
What the company presented about their product is the vitamin C content. The Nutritionist succeeded in flooding their argument that it is impossible that it is impossible for their product to be a very good supplier of vitamin C and still contain given element that absorbs it.

Option B :- CORRECT
Checking question A above, the company cannot effectively defend the content of their advertisement , how can something still be effective in the presence presence of some other things that will inevitably affect its effectiveness. Hence the manufactures's response was considered as inadequate enough for justification's sake.

Option C :- INCORRECT
The level of justification cannot be measured from here, it is therefore inconclusive. We don't know if the quantity of vitamin A present in the juice is even enough for the copper to absorb, The response should have been flawless if the manufacturer had supplied the quantity of each substance present,

Option D :- INCORRECT
the manufacturer generalized the benefits of copper but this does not contribute to the flaws. He was only unable to convince the nutritionist how the presence of copper in their product will not affect the supply of the vitamin C.

Option E :- INCORRECT
No, the Nutritionist's argument about copper remains valid and does not reflect the flaws in the Nutritionist's Argument.