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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B)

The author of this stimulus believes that if consumers can be confused by it, "sugar-free" should not be allowed to be used, because it might suggest low-calorie. If we are looking for a way to challenge the conclusion in the passage, then we should look for an answer choice that either shows that there is no real harm in allowing the term, or shows that there is some benefit or need associated with that label.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice appears to provide reason to support the ban, so it certainly does not weaken the conclusion in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If there is such a specific need for this group of people, this would be a good way to weaken the argument that the sugar-free label should be prohibited.

Answer choice (C): The quickness with which consumers note changes is not a relevant consideration in addressing the question of whether "sugar-free" should be allowed as a description.

Answer choice (D): Like incorrect answer choice (C) above, this choice has absolutely nothing to do with the central question of the passage, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This incorrect answer choice also provides information that may be interesting, but has no impact on the question of whether or not "low-sugar" should be allowed on labels.

[rachue]

Hi,
Can you please explain to me if this question is a cause and effect question? Or what type of question it is and which strategy should be used to attack it? I narrowed it down to answer B and D (B is correct) and don't fully understand why B is the better answer. I've read the explanation online here already but I still think D could be considered a correct answer.

Thanks,
Rachael

[Steve Stein]

In that one, the author's argument is that the label "sugar free" is, when placed on high-calorie foods, potentially misleading and should thus be prohibited.

Answer choice (D) supports the author's argument: if dieters are more persistent in eating what they mistakenly believe to be low-calorie foods, this provides more reason to avoid the "sugar-free" label (thus strengthening the author's argument).

Since we want to weaken the author's argument, however, we should try to show that the "sugar-free" label is actually a good idea (or that prohibiting such labeling would be a bad idea). Answer choice (B) gives a very good reason to use the "sugar-free" term in labeling: diabetics need to be able to identify such products.

[rachue]

Thanks. I do understand that last part about why B is a good choice, but I still have problems with D. The stimulus just refers to consumers "who need to lose weight", and it doesn't give a time line for when they need to lose it by. D doesn't say that they won't lose weight, just that the consumers who need to lose weight will be persistent if warned not to expect quick results; this seems to me to mean that they will lose weight, just not as quickly as they could had they not eaten the sugar-free labelled food. If their goal is to lose weight since they "need to" and not necessarily quickly, I don't see why the labels need to be changed, and why D can't be another correct answer.

[Steve Stein]

Hi Rachael,

Thanks for your follow-up question. Answer choice D only provides that people who have chosen a particular diet will persist with this diet--not that they will eventually achieve their goals or lose weight. The greater the degree of this persistence, then, the greater the potential detriment if these consumers make the wrong diet choices initially, based on their tendency, as the author has pointed out, to misinterpret the term "sugar-free."

Let me know if this makes sense--thanks!

[rachue]

That makes sense. I guess my problem was relying too much on outside knowledge, bc in layman's terms, we tend to think that if you "persist" with a diet then you will eventually lose weight. Thanks.

[ellenb]

Dear powerscore,

I had a quick question on why answer choice is B, I have read the explanations online. It seems that we need to weaken the conclusion that sugar-free labeling should not be allowed,
thus an answer will let us know why labeling is necessary. Thus, for answer choice B, it says that the products for diabetics has to explicetly say that the product contains no sugar, however it might be labeled no sugar, but it might include sweetners which is sort of similar to sugar in terms of its effects on a body of a diabetic person, it is still sugar just another form of it.

Thanks

Ellen

[BethRibet]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for your question! The conclusion in this stimulus is that the labeling of high-calorie sugar-free foods should be prohibited by law. The premise(s) that supports that conclusion give us a reason (deceiving dieters) to support that conclusion. The assumption the author appears to be making is that this concern is the only or most important one that should influence whether to ban the labeling in question. Answer choice B successfully weakens this stimulus, because it gives us a potentially compelling reason why the ban should not be in place, by telling us about another population and health consideration that is met by the labeling practice.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[JennuineInc]

I narrowed it down to B and E and chose E, I think my prephrase was off. Is my prephrase unnecessarily detailed and confusing? I'm trying to work on language simplification.

Premise: Dieters think "sugar-free" = Low calories and harm themselves by dieting with "sugar free"
P: Manufacturers know about this tendency
C: Labeling "sugar free" should be prohibited

Prephrase: Labeling "sugar free" does not need to be prohibited on the basis that manufacturers know about the tendency that people misinterpret "sugar free"

B. Yes it made sense when I read it. But then I second guessed it because it didn't fit into the second part of my prephrase in relationship with the misinterpretation of "sugar free"
E. I thought that maybe it wasn't the TERM "sugar free" that manufactures were exploiting, but they were making labels more visually attractive to attract dieters. So the labeling "sugar free" didn't need to be prohibited because that wasn't what made dieters mistakenly chose the product.

I guess I didn't focus on the harm/intent part.
Maybe a better simplification of the stimulus would be "Labeling fatty foods as "sugar free" should be banned if it misleads consumers" Is misleads too strong?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Jennuine,

Great question! Working on prephrases is really important, and I'm glad you're taking the time to figure out how to improve them. Here, that last sentence about manufacturers is actually pretty extraneous; you just need the first two sentences. The pre-phrase here, rather than being so specific, should encompass any possible right answer; my prephrase would be, "There is some reason why prohibiting sugar free labeling should not happen." Remember that you're looking to challenge the conclusion, not necessarily the whole reasoning, so you don't need anything about manufacturers in your answer choice. When looking for the right answer using this prephrase, it helps to keep in mind that we're looking for the strongest answer; an answer that explained why prohibiting sugar free labeling is pointless would be an okay answer, but an answer that explains why it would actually be harmful or bad to prohibit that labeling would be much stronger. Answer choice B does just that.