Bunuel wrote:
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?
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 scopeB. 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 scopeD. 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. -
IrrelevantE. Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely of grain products is not adequate for human health. -
A somewhat plausible reason to stick to meat !
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