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

[yrivers]

Hi,

I'm confused by choice B. As I read it, the conclusion is saying we should prohibit the labeling of sugar free b/c it's deceiving.

Choice B seems to support that conclusion. E.g., yes, we should stop being deceptive in our labeling b/c diabetic folks need to know if it actually contains sugar or not.

Could you please clarify?

Thanks,
Yaesul

[Robert Carroll]

Yaesul,

The label "sugar-free" may be deceptive in the stimulus, but not because it's not literally true. The foods so labeled don't have sugar in them. The author is claiming that consumers will incorrectly believe that the foods are also low in calories - this is where the potential deception comes in. But the statement "sugar-free" is correct, so it's at least giving that information out. The author proposes to stop allowing the label "sugar-free" to be permitted, but answer choice (B) is giving a reason why that might cause trouble for some people. The true statement "sugar-free" that diabetics need to read would be prohibited, if the author's goal is achieved. Although the prohibition might achieve some good (less chance of deception), it would carry a potential for harm (diabetics can't get true information this way anymore).

Robert Carroll

[lathlee]

hi. i am doing this question as 12-66 of powerscore lessons. the question stem states that which one of the following principles, if established, most helps to justify the conclusion in the passage?

as far as i know, this is strengthen-principle question. did you mistype or am i missing something here ?

[Jon Denning]

Hi lathlee - I believe the confusion comes from the fact that this is one of the older two-question stimuli, where #11 is Weaken, and #10 is Strengthen-PR: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10083&p=24744&hili ... ree#p24744

[ronniet]

I thought no outside information should be brought into an answer choice. Where do "individuals with diabetic need" come into the argument talking about consumers who want to lose weight. Answer choice B comes out of right field.

[Daniel Stern]

Ron:

This is a weaken question, from our "Hurt" family of logical reasoning questions. Here, we are holding the answer choices -- even if they include new information -- as true and seeing how they impact the logic of the stimulus.

So the new information in B is not only allowed for this question type, it is actually the new information that makes this answer choice the credited response .

The information about diabetic people added by answer B provides a reason that the labelling "sugar free" should continue to be allowed, as there is a population of people who need this particular information, regardless of whether it is misleading as to calorie content.

It's extremely important to review your families of logical reasoning questions and know cold the various question stem types, so that you'll know when new information is allowed or isn't allowed in an answer choice.

Best of luck in your studies,
Dan

[Mariam]

Hello-

Why is it that answer choice A does not weaken the conclusion? I thought that the conclusion is that "sugar-free" labeling should be banned because it is misleading to people trying to lose weight who end up hurting themselves by consuming the product. I thought A would weaken the argument for a ban on the labeling by suggesting that it would be ineffective because companies would find a way around getting the same consumers to continue consuming the product. I hope that explanation makes sense.

Thanks

[Christen Hammock]

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!

[anureet]

This might be a very dumb question, however, I thought B does not necessarily weaken the argument because phrases other then sugar-free could be used to express that product has no sugar. Phrases such as sugarless or there can be another way or phrase to show that the product has no sugar.

Whereas for E, if what visually appears on the label is more important to consumer behavior then it slightly weakens the argument as labels such as sugar-free won't have much effect on consumer behavior.

Thanks,
Anureet

[evelineliu]

Hi Anureet,

B weakens the argument because certain buyers (dieters) will be harmed by the possible misinterpretation of the "sugar-free" label. But if it's true that banning labels would harm another group of buyers (diabetics), that would be a strong reason to challenge the conclusion.

As for E, this one does not impact the argument. If the words "sugar-free" are misleading, they will be misleading regardless of how it looks on the packaging.

Hope that helps,
Eveline