Critical Reasoning

Hi friends,

I am having problems in solving the following problem.
Please help.

Consumer advocates argue that the coating found on non-stick cookware contains harmful chemicals that are released into the air when the cookware is heated above a certain temperature. The manufacturer of the cookware acknowledges this hazard but assures consumers that the temperature threshold is much higher than would ever be needed for food preparation and therefore no special precautions need be taken in using the cookware. Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claims of the manufacturer?

"¢ The chemicals released by the coating can linger in the air for days
"¢ Empty cookware left on the flame often reaches exceptionally high temperatures.
"¢ Several consumers have already claimed illness as a result of using the cookware.
"¢ The manufacturer did not test the cookware for this phenomenon until consumer advocates brought the issue to its attention.
"¢ There are effective non-stick coatings that do not release toxins when heated.

OA after some discussions.

"¢ The chemicals released by the coating can linger in the air for days
Does not refute the manufacturers claim. The manufacturer agrees that chemical is released in air. How long it lingers is not something the argument talks about.
"¢ Empty cookware left on the flame often reaches exceptionally high temperatures.
CORRECT. This statement calls into question the following statement made by the manufacturer "temperature threshold is much higher than would ever be needed for food preparation"
"¢ Several consumers have already claimed illness as a result of using the cookware.
This could be because of anything. Not necessarily due to the chemical in question.
"¢ The manufacturer did not test the cookware for this phenomenon until consumer advocates brought the issue to its attention.
Not related to the argument in question
"¢ There are effective non-stick coatings that do not release toxins when heated.
Not related to the argument in question

IMO = Option B

Explanation:
Manufacturer claims that temperature threshold is much higher than would be ever needed and only option B refutes it the closest among the options.

What is OA?

IMO C.

The issue with B is that although it says "exceptionally high temperatures", it fails to mention if the high temperature is greater than the threshold temperature. We have to assume that this is the case, which i believe is to much to assume.

Whereas, C clearly cites some instances of consumers already claiming illness as a result of using the cookware. Some would argue that the illness could be because of some other reason, but then we cannot question the facts stated in premises and answer choices.

Pls comment..

The debate has to involve temperature in this since that will decide if the non-stick will release toxic substance or not.

It is clearly B. Please provide OA.

Thanks.

Its B as it attacks the right place.

IMO B.

B directly attacks the conclusion.

Even I feel the answer is B. The option C is close

temperature threshold is much higher than would ever be needed for food preparation and therefore no special precautions need be taken in using the cookware. is the claim

and B is the definitive answer !
"¢ Empty cookware left on the flame often reaches exceptionally high temperatures.