Q9 - Even if many more people

[tzyc]

This is a weaken question, but here is only one sentence and I think the conclusion is "world hunger would not thereby be significantly reduced", but I'm not sure which part the premise is. Also why the answer is (C), not (A)? thank you.

[sumukh09]

Yup that is the conclusion. The premise is just the part before that, it has to be! And C is correct because it challenges the conclusion that world hunger would not be reduced even if people stopped eating meat. We need land to produce meat, if people could use that land for another type of food and if that other type of food could be produced in greater amounts than meat, then that would weaken the claim that world hunger would not be reduced if people stopped eating meat.

Assume

1. Land produces 5 tonnes of meat but could produce 20 tonnes of grain

If people stopped eating meat, then the land could be used to produce the 20 tonnes of grain and more people would thereby be fed and thus hunger reduced.

A) is incorrect because it doesn't matter what hunger results from. If someone said, "Hey man, did you know that if people stopped eating meat, world hunger could be reduced?" And then the guy he's talking to responds with, "Really? But hunger results from natural disasters!" Does this weaken the first guys argument? Nope.

[tzyc]

Thanks for your reply!
I felt the premise is kind of abnormal, does not seem like it's a premise at first...lol

[ilia.medovikov]

Thanks for your reply!
I felt the premise is kind of abnormal, does not seem like it's a premise at first...lol

Hello tz_strawberry,

I have a slightly different take on this question than that of sumukh09 but I thought I would comment in case it may be helpful. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong as I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions.

I don't think the stimulus here contains a premise since premise, by definition, is a reason for believing in a conclusion. Here, the author simply states that reduced consumption of meat would not lead to significant reduction in world hunger.But the author does not provide any reasons (premises) to believe in this assertion. As such, it seems like the argument here consists of conclusion only/the claim that author makes.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I agree with the last poster (although great explanation for (C) by the previous one).

This is not an argument. This is just a claim. Some Strengthen/Weaken tasks don't give you an argument core; they just give you a claim to strengthen or weaken.

Most question stems for Assumption Family questions will say "argument" or "reasoning" to describe the stimulus. This implies "Premise(s) + Conclusion".

Here, the question stem just says claim because there is no argument/reasoning.

For Weaken questions, I almost always say to myself the ANTI-conclusion, so that I can find an answer that would help me argue THAT.

Here, the conclusion (claim) is
Going meatless would not significantly help world hunger

So I would say in my brain, the anti-conclusion is
Going meatless WOULD significantly help world hunger

(A) Has nothing to do with going meatless
(B) This lumps meat and veggies in the same boat, so this doesn't give me an advantage to switching from animal to plant.
(C) Meatless does something good for world hunger
(D) Has nothing to do with going meatless
(E) Has nothing to do with going meatless (although the crop failure part makes it sound DANGEROUS to rely on plants, so this would almost strengthen the argument)

If we're clear on what we want out of our answer, (C) is the only thing coming close to telling us that going meatless WOULD help address world hunger.

Hope this helps.