#11 - The labeling of otherwise high-calorie foods as "sugar

[cd1010]

Hey Mariam!

Answer Choice (A) doesn't weaken the argument because it means that food companies would respond by actually making the association between "sugar-free" and "low-calorie" true! The problem now is that people assume that "sugar free" foods will help them cut calories and lose weight. If the ban resulted in food companies reducing the number of calories in their foods, that would strengthen the argument that they should be banned!

Hello! I'm still confused by the explanation Answer Choice A. Why would it strengthen the argument?

If food manufactures reduce the number of calories in their products, then the sugar-free label would actually make the product more in line with consumer expectations: that sugar free and low calorie do go together. So even if the consumers' tendency to interpret "sugar free = low calorie" is incorrect, the manufactures responding to the ban by making their products low calorie actually then makes these initially wrong consumer expectations a little closer to reality.

I took the 2nd and 3rd sentences to be premises (i.e. the fact that consumer's have this tendency IS the reason why this label should be eliminated.) So I read AC A as weakening by separating the link between the conclusion and the premises, i.e. taking away the reason provided for the ban.

As I'm writing this, my sense is that my reasoning targets the premises and the conclusion (which I know we're not supposed to do), but when I think about this particular stimulus and AC, I'm having trouble notprocessing AC A this way?

Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi cd,

There are a few important details that you may have missed in the argument.

First, the conclusion is that high calorie foods that are sugar-free (because they use artificial sweeteners, for example) should not be allowed to be labeled "sugar-free." The reason the argument gives is that many people think "sugar-free" automatically means "low calorie," and so would mistakenly buy these foods thinking that they are low in calories when they are not.

This distinction is very important because the argument has no problem with low calorie foods that are also sugar-free being labeled "sugar-free." It is only the high calorie foods being labeled "sugar-free" that the argument wants to prohibit.

Answer A states that the food manufacturers would respond to the ban by reducing the calories of these foods. This strengthens the argument because this is exactly what the person making this argument would want. In other words, if these foods were actually low in calories, then the problem goes away! (Again the problem according to the argument is when high calorie foods are labeled "sugar-free," not when low calorie foods are labeled "sugar-free,")