Ethicist: The herbivorous animals need to be fed with atleast sixteen

Question

Ethicist: The herbivorous animals need to be fed with atleast sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Though that one pound of meat is more nutritious, the sixteen pounds of grain will be able to fill up more stomachs. Hence in the long term, it will be morally incorrect to consume meat.

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

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 consumed with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value which is equal 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.

ProKiller · Answer

Conclusion: "in the long term, it will be morally incorrect to consume meat." 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. - Out of scope B. Often, cattle or sheep can be raised to maturity on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming. - Out of scope C. If a grain diet is consumed with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value which is equal to that of a diet containing meat. - Out of scope 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. - Irrelevant E. Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely of grain products is not adequate for human health. -

A somewhat plausible reason to stick to meat !

winterschool · Answer

Ethicist: The herbivorous animals need to be fed with atleast sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Though that one pound of meat is more nutritious, the sixteen pounds of grain will be able to fill up more stomachs. Hence in the long term, it will be morally incorrect to consume meat.

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

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.  Incorrect

additional info

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

it weakens conclusion, meat produced animals raised in pastureland, so grain production cant be affected by meat consume

C. If a grain diet is consumed with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value which is equal to that of a diet containing meat.  Incorrect

additional info

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.  Incorrect

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

this cant weakens conclusion that meat consume is morally wrong

I think answer B

kantapong · Answer

C: Consuming meat is morally incorrect.
E: 16 pounds of grain could fed more people than 1 pound of meat.
LJ: Just feeding fewer people, does it mean morally incorrect?
 In other words, are grains and meat actually substitutes?

A. people are willing to pay to eat meat (does not strengthen/weaken morality)
B. Cattle can be raised in grassland unsuitable for farming (but they still need to be fed by grains right?, do nothing to argument)
C. nutritional value (does not strengthen/weaken morality)
D. living in urban area (does not strengthen/weaken morality)
E. diet solely composed of grains is not adequate for health (yes, they are not substitutes, and we need meat anyways despite the fact that meat could feed less people)

I choose E.

ueh55406 · Answer

Wow. amazing explanation. thank you.

Kailash331 · Answer

B is not out of scope... in fact it directly challenges the conclusion, because it isn't always that raising animals for meat uses up grains that we could've eaten. Instead, it says that many of those animals may have been raised on land that wasn't suitable for us anyway. The perfect answer.

E is wrong I think because a diet composed solely of grain products is not adequate for human health, but scientists may have meant that vegetables and other such things should be included! The conclusion was related to quantity of food to feed people and not nutritional value of this food. E is out of scope

Divijakanneganty · Answer

Conclusion: Filling less stomachs = Morally incorrect
Assumption: 
Those extra pounds of grain that the animal eats would feed people otherwise.
A weakener should attack the assumption.

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.
 Even if many people prefer non-veg, it would be morally incorrect for people who don't  
B. Often, cattle or sheep can be raised to maturity on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming
 Attacking the assumption by stating that those extra pounds that an animal feeds on is inedible anyway 
C. If a grain diet is consumed with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value which is equal to that of a diet containing meat.
 Nutritional value has no bearing on the conclusion 
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.
 Out of scope 
E. Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely of grain products is not adequate for human health.
 Tricky choice! While that may be true about adequacy, it is not equivalent to filling MORE stomachs

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Ethicist: The herbivorous animals need to be fed with atleast sixteen

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Ethicist: The herbivorous animals need to be fed with atleast sixteen

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards