Q15 - Consumer advocate: Under the current absence

[jeffrey.m.amico]

I narrowed the answer choices down to A and C, and ultimately chose C. I can see why A is right, but I don't see why C is wrong.

Thanks

[a3friedm]

The problem with answer choice (C) is that we don't know if that manufacture disagrees with it, in fact they probably dont. The Manufacturer is saying that sometimes words could be used differently than they are commonly understood to mean.

The manufacturer however would disagree with answer choice (A) because it doesn't believe common understanding is the rule in which should be used for deceptive labeling practices, where as the consumer advocate does.

Hope this helped

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

a3's explanation of A/C is spot on, but I figured I'd step in and do the whole rigamarole.

Consumer Advocate:
Premise: "Fresh" is commonly understood to mean pure/unprocessed, this product is not pure/unprocessed
Conclusion: This product is deceptively labeled

Manufacturer:
Premise: "Fresh" can mean "never frozen"
Conclusion: The product is not deceptively labeled

(A) CORRECT. The consumer advocate argues that "fresh" should have its common meaning, whereas the manufacturer says it should also be allowed its second meaning. That's a disagreement.

(B) Based on the statements, the two parties actually agree on this. (See the first sentence of CA, and the last sentence of M).

(C) a3 already explained this, but just to double up: The manufacturer doesn't actually seem to disagree about what the common meaning is. The argument is simply that "Fresh" also has another meaning, regardless of what the common meaning is.

(D) "Natural" foods are never discussed in the passage (what would it even mean?).

(E) This goes way too far. While both the consumer advocate and the manufacturer believe the government can/should create standards for labeling, that doesn't mean either of them believe such standards will ensure truthful labeling practices.

Hope that helps!

-t