Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies...

Question

Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies. Research shows that vegetarians can obtain a full complement of proteins and minerals from nonanimal foods.

Theodora: You are wrong in claiming that vegetarianism cannot lead to nutritional deficiencies. If most people became vegetarians, some of those losing jobs due to the collapse of many meat-based industries would fall into poverty and hence be unable to afford a nutritionally adequate diet.

Theodora’s reply to Marcia’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that her reply:

(A) is directed toward disproving a claim that Marcia did not make
(B) ignores the results of the research cited by Marcia
(C) takes for granted that no meat-based industries will collapse unless most people become vegetarians
(D) uses the word “diet” in a nontechnical sense whereas Marcia’s argument uses this term in a medical sense
(E) takes for granted that people losing jobs in meat-based industries would become vegetarians

Source: LSAT PrepTest 61 - 2010

AnuK2222 · Answer

Answer is A, Theodora talks about nutrient deficiency in employees as result of collapse of meat industry where as Marcia only talks about nutrition of people who consume vegetarian diets.

I don't think POE works for these logical type questions (especially LSAT Qs) so I pick based on my understanding of the passage, if anyone has a good process for these types of questions, please do share!

riri3026 · Answer

A. Marcia says that Veg can be fine, and then Theodore goes and cites some information that is not in relation to the argument at hand. Winner.
B. She does not ignore the results, she does take the result into full consideration but not in a way that flows with the argument.
C. Quite a stretch in my opinion.
D. Both of them use it in the daily definition of diet ie. in simple words "what one consumes in a day".
E. Again, quite a stretch.

Edit: Please let me know if this POE is corrrect! Thank you

PSKhore · Answer

The best answer is (A).  Marcia's claim is that not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies; Theodora's argument is that widespread vegetarianism will lead to poverty and nutritional deficiencies for some due to job losses in meat-based industries. Theodora's argument is directed at disproving the possibility of nutritional deficiencies due to vegetarianism, which is a broader claim than Marcia's statement that not all vegetarian diets lead to deficiencies. 
Theodora's argument does not address Marcia's point about the possibility of healthy vegetarian diets.

Explanation of why other options are incorrect:

(B) ignores the results of the research cited by Marcia:
While Marcia mentions research, Theodora's point is about the potential societal impact of widespread vegetarianism, which is a separate issue from the nutritional content of individual diets. Theodora's argument is not about whether vegetarians can get nutrients, but rather about the possible negative social and economic consequences if most people became vegetarians.

(C) takes for granted that no meat-based industries will collapse unless most people become vegetarians:
Theodora's argument hinges on the idea that widespread vegetarianism would cause job losses in meat industries. However, this is not necessarily the case, and Theodora does not provide evidence for this assumption.

(D) uses the word “diet” in a nontechnical sense whereas Marcia's argument uses this term in a medical sense:
This is incorrect. Both Marcia and Theodora use the word "diet" in a general sense to refer to food intake. They are not using it in a strictly medical sense.

(E) takes for granted that people losing jobs in meat-based industries would become vegetarians:
Theodora's argument does not assume this; it focuses on the consequences of job losses for those who already are or may become vegetarians due to the industry collapse. Theodora's argument is focused on the potential for job losses and resultant poverty, not a change in dietary choices.

Source: AI Overview

Krish061105 · Answer

I really don't understand this plll reply with similar but easy example plllll

WhitEngagePrep · Answer

I think that people are correctly choosing A, but not for the right reasons, so let's break the argument down. Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies. Research shows that vegetarians can obtain a full complement of proteins and minerals from nonanimal foods. Marcia says "not all" lead to nutritional deficiencies, but she's not saying that they never do. She's just saying that it is possible to eat a vegetarian diet and still "obtain a full complement" of nutrients. She's made an extremely soft claim. She's not saying you'll necessarily be fine as a vegetarian, just that you aren't necessarily doomed either. To attack her, you'd have to show that there is no possible way to obtain the necessary nutrients on a vegetarian diet. Theodora: You are wrong in claiming that vegetarianism cannot lead to nutritional deficiencies. If most people became vegetarians, some of those losing jobs due to the collapse of many meat-based industries would fall into poverty and hence be unable to afford a nutritionally adequate diet. WOAH Theodora. First, Marcia did NOT claim that vegetarianism CANNOT lead to nutritional deficiencies, just that it doesn't always have to. This feels like the type of crappy rebuttal you'll find in Instagram comments where the commenter deliberately escalates and misconstrues the argument to make it easier to beat (this is a straw man argument btw - falsely characterize your opponents argument to make it easier to defeat). Second, Marcia was literally just saying that people could still get the nutrients they need even from non animal foods. You're saying that if these industries collapse that people will be too poor to afford nutritionally adequate foods, but are you talking about MEAT-based nutritionally adequate or nonanimal sources?? You didn't specify which means you're still over there being sloppy trying to debate Marcia. You'd need to say something like, "hence they'd be unable to afford either the animal or non animal foods that would provide adequate nutrition. I mean, wow, Theodora really is a perfect example of the chat trolls ruining the internet. But I digress

... So what is Theodora's reply to Marcia MOST vulnerable to criticism for? It's the straw-man attack - she mischaracterized Marcia's argument and then debated that mischaracterization. Check the choices - note that I ALWAYS use process of elimination, even if I'm predicting possible areas where the answer choice might strengthen or weaken etc.: (A) is directed toward disproving a claim that Marcia did not make Yep - Marcia did NOT make the argument that you cannot have nutritional deficiencies, so arguing against that isn't a fair argument. (B) ignores the results of the research cited by Marcia I mean, she is sortof ignoring the research mostly because she full-fledged changed the terms of the argument, so the research just stopped being relevant. But this isn't nearly as egregious as making up her own version of what Marcia said. (C) takes for granted that no meat-based industries will collapse unless most people become vegetarians This is the opposite of what Theodora is doing. If anything, she's actively saying that meat-based industries WILL collapse. So this is wrong. (D) uses the word “diet” in a nontechnical sense whereas Marcia’s argument uses this term in a medical sense It's not clear how Theodora is using the word "diet," or whether that is different from Marcia. Eliminate. (E) takes for granted that people losing jobs in meat-based industries would become vegetarians Again, not sure what Theodora thinks will happen to people losing jobs other than be too impoverished to afford a nutritionally adequate diet. But as noted above, she doesn't make clear whether she thinks they'll fail to be able to afford a meat-based or vegetarian diet. Wrong. So the correct answer is A because Theodora's straw-man tactics should be criticized! Now, @ Krish061105 asked for a simpler example of the argument. Here goes: My argument was to increase some "healthy" items while simply reducing the size of SOME sugar-filled items. The troll then changes my argument to something more extreme "you want to take away everything good" because that extreme argument is far more easy to defeat. Of course I don't want to take everything delicious or even sugary off the menu, just possibly reduce the size of one item (not even take it away). Straw-man arguments are maybe the things I hate more than anything in the world of politics and the internet these days, so it's been nice getting to point them out here! Hope the discussion helped!

Whit

Krish061105 · Answer

Thanku so much , truly good explanation

Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies...

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

Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies...

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