Consumer health advocate:Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.
Candy manufacturer:Our manufacturing process results in there being less caffeine in each chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.
The candy manufacturer's response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health advocate's argument because it
fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the manufacturer is enough to keep people addicted
assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of caffeine
does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
treats the consumer health advocate's argument as though it were about each candy bar rather than about the manufacturer's candy in general
merely contradicts the consumer health advocate's conclusion without giving any reason to believe that the advocate's reasoning is unsound
CHA的论证:因:咖啡因令人成瘾,果:你们公司想要让你们的顾客对你们的产品上瘾;
CM的论证:我们的产品里的咖啡因比未加工的可可豆里含有咖啡因要少。
本题的实质是,找出一个可以削弱CHA的论证的选项(同时这个选项也是在解释为什么CM的论证不够有力)
最好的选项就是A,A是直接指出candy bar 里的咖啡因的量完全不至于让人成瘾,所以公司没有想要让顾客对产品上瘾,从而削弱CHA的论证