Yangyi.vita Wrote:Hi! Thanks for the posts.
I don't get why E is not right. The implicit reason for the conclusion here seems to be that to produce meat will cause more people to starve than to produce grain. But what if meat is necessary, Like E said? Why this can not weaken eating meat is morally unacceptable?
Here's my analysis of this question.... let me know what you think, particularly with regard to my explanation of (E).
Premise: Grain can feed more people than meat can.
Premise: Decreasing agricultural resources cannot keep pace with increasing demand.
Conclusion: Eating meat will be morally unacceptable in the near future.
This argument makes a number of assumptions, including: 1) An activity (consuming meat) is not morally acceptable if production of a product consumed by that activity does not make efficient use of limited resources, and 2) land used to raise cows used for meat production can be used (more effectively) to grow grain for human consumption.
Point conceded to opposing viewpoint: A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain.
(A) Out of scope. Whether or not a vegetarian diet is healthy is irrelevant with respect to the argument that is about whether a diet is morally acceptable.
(B) The correct answer. This answer choice attacks the second assumption discussed above. If it is true that cattle can be raised to maturity on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming, then the conclusion that eating meat is morally unacceptable is weakened (the decreasing agricultural resources becomes less of an issue with respect to meat production.)
(C) Out of scope. This answer addresses a point that is conceded (that meat is more nutritious than grain) to an opposing viewpoint. While this does not impact the argument, it does weaken the opposing viewpoint.
(D) Out of scope. This answer choice has nothing to do with the argument core, but attempts to address a potential cause of a problem referenced in the argument’s premise. Since this does not attack an assumption made in the argument core, it does not weaken the argument.
(E) Out of scope. Diet composed solely of grain products? This answer choice does not weaken the conclusion that eating meat will soon be morally unacceptable. This answer choice is attractive if the reader equates "diet composed solely of grain products" with "diets that exclude meat," but this actually goes too far and excludes fruits, vegetables, candy, and many other foods, as well. If the answer choice said "Diets that exclude meat are inadequate for human health," it would probably have the effect of weakening the argument, or at least it would be much closer to being correct.