OG-181

181.
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 les 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
(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the
manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of
caffeine
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(D) treats the consumer heal advocate’s argument as though it were about each candy bar
rather than about the manufacturer’s candy in general
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate’s conclusion without giving any reason
to believe that the advocate’s reasoning is unsound

181.
In the dialogue, the candy manufacturer tries to rebut the claim that caffeine is added to
chocolate candy bars in order to keep consumers addicted. The rebuttal is that the caffeine
added is restoring to the product caffeine that was lost during manufacture. The question asks you to identify why this rebuttal is inadequate.

我不明白OG的这句解释。制造商说他们生产的巧克力其实是比原加工材料中含有的可卡因少。OG这句好象是在说加的可卡因。