Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a critical reasoning question that asks you to identify the rhetorical strategy used by the consumer advocate to counter the manufacturer's argument. We need to analyze the structure of both arguments.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Manufacturer's Argument:
\begin{itemize}
\item Premise: RipeCal contains calcium.
\item Premise: Calcium helps make children healthy.
\item Conclusion: Drinking RipeCal will help make children healthy.
\end{itemize}
Consumer Advocate's Response:
The advocate does not dispute the manufacturer's premises about calcium. Instead, the advocate introduces a new piece of information: RipeCal contains large amounts of sugar, which is unhealthful.
This additional fact about sugar directly challenges the manufacturer's overall conclusion that the drink is healthy. The advocate is arguing that even if the calcium part is beneficial, the negative effect of the sugar outweighs it, thus calling the conclusion into question.
Let's evaluate the options:
\begin{itemize}
\item (A) The advocate does not challenge the value of calcium.
\item (B) The advocate introduces new evidence (sugar), rather than re-interpreting the manufacturer's evidence (calcium).
\item (C) The advocate's response is about the product itself, not the manufacturer's general concerns or motives.
\item (D) The advocate's argument is about the presence of an unhealthful substance (sugar), not the excessive consumption of a healthful one.
\item (E) This accurately describes the strategy. The advocate presents an "additional fact" (the high sugar content) to challenge the manufacturer's "conclusion" (that RipeCal is a healthy choice).
\end{itemize}
Step 3: Final Answer:
The consumer advocate's strategy is to introduce an additional, negative fact to undermine the manufacturer's positive conclusion.