[求助]OG-181的OG解释中的一句话

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 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

(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 A

(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.

Choice A is the best answer. The candy manufacturer’s rebuttal amounts to an admission that the candy bars could be manufactured to contain less caffeine than they do. Therefore, the crucial issue for assessing the health advocate’s account of the reason for adding the caffeine is whether the amount of caffeine added is enough to make the candy addictive.

Although choices B and D both describe possible flaws in a response, neither of them is a correct description of the response the manufacturer actually gives. With respect to choice C, although the manufacturer does not specify how the caffeine is lost, the mechanism of manufacture is not relevant to the issue that the health advocate raises. With respect to choice E, the manufacturer does not give any reason for thinking the advocate’s reason is unsound. But contrary to what this choice says, the manufacturer does not actually contradict the health advocate’s conclusion.

题目看懂了，但是想问OG解释中的The rebuttal is that the caffeine added is restoring to the product caffeine that was lost during manufacture这个句子中的restoring意思是什么啊？是还原吗？如果说added修饰第一个caffine，that was lost during manufacture修饰the product caffeine。我迷惑的是为什么说添加的咖啡因会还原成在加工过程中丢失的咖啡因呢？

笨笨的问题，请过路的好心人回答一下，谢谢！

哪里是笨笨的哦，我斗胆说一下自己的想法：相对于那些加工过程中丢失的原始咖啡因来说，添加进去的是被提炼还原过的（所以不造成危害）——这是rebuttal的reasoning.

我查了restore,没找到贴切的意思，只是根据文章描述，觉得应该这么解释。restore是一般作及物，所以to应该表示matching的含义吧.

我猜得……你现在有答案了吗?

汗，差点都已经忘记这个问题了，偶后来查了朗文字典restore有一个意思是POSITIVE FEELING的意思）（to bring back a positive feeling that a person or a group of people felt before

我怀疑可能是这个意思，有积极作用的。

不然翻成还原好像真的太勉强了，怎么都理解不了啊。

有没有NN再来回答一下啊。

我觉得是不是省略了amounts

is restoring to the amount of product coffeine that...