Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 25 Aug 2016, 20:26

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 339
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 31

Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2012, 09:03
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

64% (01:59) correct 36% (01:34) wrong based on 28 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain, but sixteen pounds of grain could feed many more people than could a pound of meat. With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding, we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken
the ethicist’s argument?

(A) Even though it has been established that a
vegetarian diet can be healthy, many people
prefer to eat meat and are willing to pay for it.

(B) Often, cattle or sheep can be raised to maturity
on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for
any other kind of farming.

(C) If a grain diet is supplemented with protein
derived from non-animal sources, it can have
nutritional value equivalent to that of a diet
containing meat.

(D) Although prime farmland near metropolitan
areas is being lost rapidly to suburban
development, we could reverse this trend by
choosing to live in areas that are already
urban.

(E) Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely
of grain products is not adequate for human
health.

OA, after some time.
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Current Student
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1095
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 474 [0], given: 70

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2012, 10:29
IMO its B
The Population is increasing but the area of farm land is decreasing, hence the production of grains also decreasing.Production of mean requires too much of grains hence its morally unacceptable to consume meat.

An option that proves that its not morally unacceptable i.e. production of meat will not lead to too much consumption of grains.....
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 32

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 01:56
vomhorizon wrote:
Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain, but sixteen pounds of grain could feed many more people than could a pound of meat. With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding, we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken
the ethicist’s argument?

(A) Even though it has been established that a
vegetarian diet can be healthy, many people
prefer to eat meat and are willing to pay for it.

(B) Often, cattle or sheep can be raised to maturity
on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for
any other kind of farming.

(C) If a grain diet is supplemented with protein
derived from non-animal sources, it can have
nutritional value equivalent to that of a diet
containing meat.

(D) Although prime farmland near metropolitan
areas is being lost rapidly to suburban
development, we could reverse this trend by
choosing to live in areas that are already
urban.

(E) Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely
of grain products is not adequate for human
health.

OA, after some time.

IMO B.
Conclusion of the argument is " we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable"
Premise -> With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding
Rest all are background info that can be ignored for answering this question.
To weaken we must find an answer that says "consumption of meat will be morally acceptable"

B says cattle or sheep can be raised on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming (a method that does not involve grains) - if this true, which is, then ppl can continue to consume meat!"

Cheers
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2011
Posts: 224
Location: India
GMAT 1: 440 Q33 V13
GMAT 2: 0 Q0 V0
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 44

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 02:24
Archit143 wrote:
IMO its B
The Population is increasing but the area of farm land is decreasing, hence the production of grains also decreasing.Production of mean requires too much of grains hence its morally unacceptable to consume meat.

An option that proves that its not morally unacceptable i.e. production of meat will not lead to too much consumption of grains.....

+1 for B

Ya ur explanation was convincing...
Also i was confused between B and D.

Can u explain why not D?
_________________

GMAT - Practice, Patience, Persistence
Kudos if u like

Current Student
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 339
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 31

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 04:57
Quote:
Can u explain why not D?

The argument mentions the premise and then the author CONCLUDES. The conclusion can be weakened if we show beyond reasonable doubt that the CONCLUSION does not logically follow from the premise..

Borriwing from JP27

Premise

Quote:
With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding

Conclusion:

Quote:
we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable

Grain yields have leveled..Large agriculture areas are going out of business, and we have a population that is expanding..

One way to look at this is to ask oneself "Why has the author concluded this" ... Obviously in this case the author is arguing that the cattle and cattle farming is putting a burden on the soil which could have been used to grow grain (in the sense that the grain is being produced for the CATTLE rather then for humans), that could otherwise feed many more people...Therefore the Answer choice B is correct because it tackles this conclusion in that it introduces a new PREMISE with the addition of which the CONCLUSION has become totally erroneous.

D is wrong because it is out of scope. Although the author does breifly mention declining agriculture land, he's linking LAND that can grow grains to feed HUMANS vs an alternative use of that land to farm cattle. His conclusion is therefore resting on this very premise. Therefore any additional information that does not mention this link does nothing to weaken the conclusion and the argument in general.

Hope it helps..

BTW (B) is the OA...
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2011
Posts: 224
Location: India
GMAT 1: 440 Q33 V13
GMAT 2: 0 Q0 V0
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 44

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 20:21
vomhorizon wrote:
Quote:
Can u explain why not D?

The argument mentions the premise and then the author CONCLUDES. The conclusion can be weakened if we show beyond reasonable doubt that the CONCLUSION does not logically follow from the premise..

Borriwing from JP27

Premise

Quote:
With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding

Conclusion:

Quote:
we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable

Grain yields have leveled..Large agriculture areas are going out of business, and we have a population that is expanding..

One way to look at this is to ask oneself "Why has the author concluded this" ... Obviously in this case the author is arguing that the cattle and cattle farming is putting a burden on the soil which could have been used to grow grain (in the sense that the grain is being produced for the CATTLE rather then for humans), that could otherwise feed many more people...Therefore the Answer choice B is correct because it tackles this conclusion in that it introduces a new PREMISE with the addition of which the CONCLUSION has become totally erroneous.

D is wrong because it is out of scope. Although the author does breifly mention declining agriculture land, he's linking LAND that can grow grains to feed HUMANS vs an alternative use of that land to farm cattle. His conclusion is therefore resting on this very premise. Therefore any additional information that does not mention this link does nothing to weaken the conclusion and the argument in general.

Hope it helps..

BTW (B) is the OA...

Hmmm thanks vomhorizon...

I'm facing difficulties with CR ...
Not able to get through difficult ques
_________________

GMAT - Practice, Patience, Persistence
Kudos if u like

Current Student
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 339
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 31

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 20:32
All you have to remember in WEAKEN questions is that the Author's CONCLUSION needs to be weakened..and the way to weaken that conclusion is to find an alternate conclusion based on the premise. Even if the conclusion is erroneous, we have to assume that the AUTHOR based his conclusion on the premise (s) and Believed in it 100%. Therefore any choice that cannot blend in with the Premise ----> Conclusion connection is Incorrect. Other wrong answers may be Paraphrases of existing premise, or a choice that may be totally out of scope (other then the obvious ones which either Strengthen the conclusion or leave it unchanged - those are generally easy to spot).. Critical reasoning although involves a lot of Logic, can be improved upon if you Establish the Rules and Methodology that is laid down by most Text books (I prefer the Power score Logic reasoning LSAT book)..Just remember each CR question type is essentially a different concept and involves a different approach.
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2011
Posts: 224
Location: India
GMAT 1: 440 Q33 V13
GMAT 2: 0 Q0 V0
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 44

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain.. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2012, 22:09
vomhorizon wrote:
All you have to remember in WEAKEN questions is that the Author's CONCLUSION needs to be weakened..and the way to weaken that conclusion is to find an alternate conclusion based on the premise. Even if the conclusion is erroneous, we have to assume that the AUTHOR based his conclusion on the premise (s) and Believed in it 100%. Therefore any choice that cannot blend in with the Premise ----> Conclusion connection is Incorrect. Other wrong answers may be Paraphrases of existing premise, or a choice that may be totally out of scope (other then the obvious ones which either Strengthen the conclusion or leave it unchanged - those are generally easy to spot).. Critical reasoning although involves a lot of Logic, can be improved upon if you Establish the Rules and Methodology that is laid down by most Text books (I prefer the Power score Logic reasoning LSAT book)..Just remember each CR question type is essentially a different concept and involves a different approach.

Ya i agree with u....
Each CR is different....
Gotta learn a lot....
hmmm thanks dude....
_________________

GMAT - Practice, Patience, Persistence
Kudos if u like

Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 91
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 45

Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2014, 16:17
Wow! I ended up choosing E, but after seeing vomhorizon words above is clearly very far away from the conclusion. E is out-of-escope, as it does not address the issue of land usage.
Re: Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed   [#permalink] 05 Jan 2014, 16:17
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was 12 09 May 2010, 08:09
Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was 19 10 Oct 2009, 06:35
39 The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is 58 07 Jun 2009, 23:45
On average, the local zoo moves the location of the animals 2 30 Nov 2008, 11:28
3 The worker s union of GrainCorp., a grain processing plant, 10 17 Aug 2007, 14:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by