|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
11 Oct 2021, 03:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
79% (01:16) correct
21%
(01:43)
wrong
based on 294
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Even if many more people in the world excluded meat from their diet, world hunger would not thereby be significantly reduced.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the claim above?
(A) Hunger often results from natural disasters like typhoons or hurricanes, which sweep away everything in their path.
(B) Both herds and crops are susceptible to devastating viral and other diseases.
(C) The amount of land needed to produce enough meat to feed one person for a week can grow enough grain to feed more than ten people for a week.
(D) Often people go hungry because they live in remote barren areas where there is no efficient distribution for emergency food relief.
(E) Most historical cases of famine have been due to bad social and economic policies or catastrophes such as massive crop failure.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the claim above?
(A) Hunger often results from natural disasters like typhoons or hurricanes, which sweep away everything in their path.
(B) Both herds and crops are susceptible to devastating viral and other diseases.
(C) The amount of land needed to produce enough meat to feed one person for a week can grow enough grain to feed more than ten people for a week.
(D) Often people go hungry because they live in remote barren areas where there is no efficient distribution for emergency food relief.
(E) Most historical cases of famine have been due to bad social and economic policies or catastrophes such as massive crop failure.
16 Oct 2021, 03:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This isn’t really an argument, it’s just a conclusion. No evidence was presented whatsoever, just a claim pulled out of someone’s ass. This should, therefore, be pretty easy to argue with. I’d start by saying, “Why the hell wouldn’t vegetarianism cure world hunger?” Note that I’m not saying it would, but rather, “You haven’t proven your case that it won’t.” Now, if this were a must be true question, I wouldn’t be allowed to bring in outside information. But for a weaken question like this one, I will definitely use my knowledge of the world to bring up potential problems with the argument. Here, the first thing I’m thinking is: I have read that meat is not a very efficient calorie-delivery system, because first you have to grow about 200,000 calories of grain, feed it to a cow, and then kill the cow and get only about 10,000 calories of meat in return. If we just ate the grain instead, the argument goes, we could feed 20 times as many people for the same amount of initial plant calories. Of course, I made up all those numbers, but the concept remains the same. Aren’t plant calories more efficient? If plant calories are more efficient than meat, then the claim made in the argument is seriously weakened. So that’s what I’m looking for as I head into the answer choices. (That, or something that would be similarly damaging.)
A) If this said hunger always results from natural disasters, then it might strengthen the idea that a switch to vegetarianism wouldn’t cure hunger. But it doesn’t say always, and we are looking for a weakener, so this answer sucks.
B) If this said hunger is always caused by disease, and herds and crops are both susceptible to disease, then it would strengthen the idea that a switch to vegetarianism wouldn’t cure hunger. But it doesn’t say hunger is always caused by disease, and we’re looking for a weakener, so this answer also sucks.
C) Boom. This is almost exactly what we were looking for. It says we can feed more people, on any given piece of land, by growing grains instead of meat. This has got to be the answer. Let’s just give D and E a quick look.
D) Emergency food relief is not relevant, if it doesn’t say anything about the differences/similarities between meat and veggies. No way.
E) If this said famine is always caused by social/economic policies or massive crop failure, then it would strengthen the idea that a switch to vegetarianism wouldn’t cure hunger. But it doesn’t say always, and we’re looking for a weakener, so like A and B, this sucks.
Our answer is C.
09 Aug 2025, 04:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Alright — let’s break this one down with the **Pin & Flip** method.
---
## **Step 1 – Pin the core argument**
The claim says:
> *Even if more people stopped eating meat → world hunger would **not** be significantly reduced.*
That means the author is **denying** a possible cause-effect link:
Cause: people exclude meat from their diet
Effect: significant reduction in world hunger
They are claiming **this effect won’t happen**.
---
## **Step 2 – Flip the assumption to weaken**
To weaken, we ask:
> What if eating less meat **could** actually reduce world hunger?
> Is there a strong reason that switching away from meat would *free up more food* for hungry people?
If we can find evidence that meat production wastes resources compared to plant food production, that’s our flip.
---
## **Step 3 – Test each option**
* **(A)** Natural disasters cause hunger → Doesn’t challenge the specific claim about meat’s impact. ❌
* **(B)** Herds & crops both get diseases → True, but unrelated to whether meat → less hunger. ❌
* **(C)** Land for meat could grow grain to feed 10× more people → 💥 Direct flip. This shows that shifting land from meat to grain could dramatically increase food supply, contradicting the claim that it wouldn’t reduce hunger. ✅
* **(D)** People go hungry due to poor distribution → Doesn’t address resource efficiency difference between meat & plants. ❌
* **(E)** Historical famines from politics/crop failures → Past causes, not about meat vs. hunger link. ❌
---
✅ **Answer:** **C** — It pins the claim that “meat reduction won’t reduce hunger” and flips it by showing meat production is resource-inefficient, meaning reducing meat could feed far more people.
---
## **Step 1 – Pin the core argument**
The claim says:
> *Even if more people stopped eating meat → world hunger would **not** be significantly reduced.*
That means the author is **denying** a possible cause-effect link:
Cause: people exclude meat from their diet
Effect: significant reduction in world hunger
They are claiming **this effect won’t happen**.
---
## **Step 2 – Flip the assumption to weaken**
To weaken, we ask:
> What if eating less meat **could** actually reduce world hunger?
> Is there a strong reason that switching away from meat would *free up more food* for hungry people?
If we can find evidence that meat production wastes resources compared to plant food production, that’s our flip.
---
## **Step 3 – Test each option**
* **(A)** Natural disasters cause hunger → Doesn’t challenge the specific claim about meat’s impact. ❌
* **(B)** Herds & crops both get diseases → True, but unrelated to whether meat → less hunger. ❌
* **(C)** Land for meat could grow grain to feed 10× more people → 💥 Direct flip. This shows that shifting land from meat to grain could dramatically increase food supply, contradicting the claim that it wouldn’t reduce hunger. ✅
* **(D)** People go hungry due to poor distribution → Doesn’t address resource efficiency difference between meat & plants. ❌
* **(E)** Historical famines from politics/crop failures → Past causes, not about meat vs. hunger link. ❌
---
✅ **Answer:** **C** — It pins the claim that “meat reduction won’t reduce hunger” and flips it by showing meat production is resource-inefficient, meaning reducing meat could feed far more people.
