Ah I see. That makes a bit more sense.

But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.

I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.