Self-study
Consumer advocate: Under the current absence of government standards for food product labeling, manufacturers are misleading or deceiving consumers by their product labeling. ███ ████████ █ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████ ██ ██████████████ ██████████
█████████████ █████ █████ ████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ █████
Structural Breakdown
·
Freshquivocation
Here's a summary of each party's argument, highlighting the internal structure:
Consumer Advocate
Context: There aren't currently any government standards for labeling.
Premise: This OJ is labeled "fresh," but doesn't match our common understanding of that word.
—
Conclusion: This OJ is deceptively labeled.
Conclusion: Manufacturers are using deceptive labeling.Manufacturer
Premise: "Fresh" technically has other meanings beyond the "common understanding."
—
Conclusion: Not matching common understanding doesn't make the labeling deceptive.
Independent Claim: Don't blame us for not abiding by your personal standards.
Independent Claim: We'll happily comply with actual government standards.
16.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████
a
In the absence ██ ██████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████ ██████ ██████
(A) is best understood as an invitation to defend the wrong viewpoint – it’s a great defense of the advocate’s position against that of the manufacturer.
If common standards of understanding should determine whether labeling is deceptive, then the manufacturer’s argument fails – the use of “fresh” doesn’t match common understanding, and is therefore deceptive.
b
Government standards for ████████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████████
Irrelevant – the manufacturer’s point is whatever those standards are, they’ll happily comply.
c
People should be █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████
This aligns with and justifies the manufacturer’s behavior. There are no current standards governing food labeling, so it is currently legal for manufacturers to use the word “fresh” in sketchy ways. (C) says if it’s legal, people should be free to do it.
d
When government standards ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████ ███████████
There are no government standards currently in place, so this can’t provide positive support for the manufacturer’s position that using words differently from how they are commonly understood isn’t deceptive. (D) would be correct if existing government standards backed up the manufacturer’s labeling.
e
In their interpretation ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████████ ██████ █████ █████████████ █████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██████████
A lot of things wrong here. (E) makes a big deal out of whether consumers think manufacturers intended to deceive, but neither of those things matters. No one cares what consumers think, and the point of contention between the advocate and the manufacturer is whether the labeling is deceptive in fact, not whether that deception was intentional.
The whole “reap large benefits” business comes in out of nowhere, too.