). From the question stimulus, we know that the procedure for determining whether to ban a food additive or not is to look at the benefits and risks. We assume here that if it has more benefit than risk than it won't be banned and vice versa. Coloring might cause allergic reactions in a few customers but it also enhances the enjoyment in most customers.
-->
Should not be banned because its benefits outweigh the risk
A few thoughts are going through my mind right now. The first being that, well what if people's enjoyment is actually outweighed by the risk of allergic reaction. What if the allergic reaction is so bad that it causes death? Wouldn't this be enough that, even for a few people experiencing it, the product should be banned? This is what I pre-phrased in my head but the actual answer was a little simpler than that.
(A) It definitely does not do this. We know from the stimulus that there is at least one health-related risk...the allergic reactions.
(C) "Some food additives" is a bit out of the scope for this particular question. We are only talking about this particular food additive. So what if some food additives are one way or another?
(D) Yea this may be true but it doesn't mean that it's the flaw. We were given the premises regarding the additive's benefits and risks. We don't need to question them. It would be different (and incredibly strange) if the author said something like "I think that the food additives cause X and Y." Obviously, we can refute that in the real world. However, this is the LSAT. On the LSAT, we take the premises as absolutely correct and there was no indication that there was some flaw in how the premises were arrived at. Our job is to attack the gap between the premises and conclusion...stick to it!
(E) Do we know that there are warning labels on this product? Do we know what the warning labels say? Even if the warning labels said something or another does this warrant that the additive should be banned? This answer choice leaves too much to the imagination. We need something more clean-cut.
(B) Here we go! This is exactly what the argument is doing, though a little different answer choice than I expected. It is assuming that the enjoyment is an actual benefit. The argument is saying that MOST people enjoy the product and SO it should not be banned. As we know, if the good outweighs the bad then the product apparently should not be banned. There is STILL some more flaws with this argument (as I had pre-phrased) but this is the best flaw that these answer choices give - though a little unsatisfying, I know.