Passage Summary: A rule states that if consumers would be upset to find an ingredient in a food, it must be labeled. Since Crackly Crisps' customers don't care about GMOs, the author claims the chips don't need a label.

Conclusion: Crackly Crisps do not need to be labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients.

Reasoning: Most consumers of Crackly Crisps would not be bothered if they discovered the product contained genetically engineered ingredients.

Analysis: The argument commits a classic formal logic error known as a 'Mistaken Negation.' The principle provides a sufficient condition for labeling (upset consumers), but it doesn't say that this is the *only* reason a product should be labeled. Look for an answer that points out that just because the 'upset' condition isn't met, it doesn't mean labeling isn't required for some other reason. It's like saying 'If it's raining, the ground is wet; it's not raining, so the ground must be dry'—ignoring the possibility of a garden hose.