Q21 - Ethicist: On average, animals raised

[dan]

21. (B)
Question Type: Weaken the Conclusion
The conclusion is that the consumption of meat is morally unacceptable because raising meat takes away valuable grain resources that could feed 16 times as many people. But, this would be a valid argument only if raising meat uses valuable grain resources. In other words, what if it were possible to raise meat without using any valuable grain? Then, we could raise meat without feeling guilty about doing it at the expense of grain, and the argument of immorality would be severely weakened. Answer (B) expresses this idea.

(A) is out of scope (people’s preferences are irrelevant to a discussion about morality).
(C) is out of scope (the issue isn’t nutritional value of grain vs. meat, but rather whether we can continue to raise meat).
(D) is the most tempting of the incorrect answer choices. It seems to weaken the argument by suggesting we could save this prime farmland for grain production (making it more feasible to raise both meat and grain, and thus morally acceptable to do both), but could we still raise meat without feeling guilty about using up 16 pounds of grain per pound of meat raised? Not necessarily.
(E) is out of scope (the issue isn’t whether a grain-only diet is adequate, but whether it is morally acceptable to eat meat).


#officialexplanation

[soyeonjeon]

I am still confused amongst A, B, and E.
I am still having problem with the stimulus. I don't think it makes logical sense for the ethicist to go from the nutrition perspective then touches the quantity factor and suddenly conclude with a moral argument.

And I also don't see your reasoning for choosing B instead of A. How does B illustrate that cattle and sheep can be raised without feeding them grain? I do not see that anywhere in B.

Please HELP. I am really lost with this one.

[cyt5015]

Hi, maybe I can try to answer your question. Answer B provides an alternative food resource for animals, which is grass; therefore, animals can be raised without consumption of grain. Additionally, B also mentions that the pastureland is unsuitable for any other kind of farming which means that it can not be used to grow grain anyway. Answer B breaks the logic link (grain-animal-food for human) used by author.

[tommywallach]

Hey Soyeon,

Cyt's explanation is spot-on. The questionable nature of the argument isn't really at issue (remember, the argument for EVERY SINGLE ASSUMPTION-BASED QUESTION will be bad in one way or another). We need to weaken the link between the premise and the conclusion.

Premise: Grain is more efficient and we're running out of farmland.
Conclusion: We gotta stop eating meat so we can grow more grain.

Answer choice (B) says that there is land out there that isn't good for growing anything other than food for meat. If that's the case, then "Freeing up" that land will not help grow any more grain, so we might as well grow the grass to feed the cows.

Hope that helps!

-t

[Yangyi.vita]

Hi! Thanks for the posts.

I don't get why E is not right. The implicit reason for the conclusion here seems to be that to produce meat will cause more people to starve than to produce grain. But what if meat is necessary, Like E said? Why this can not weaken eating meat is morally unacceptable?

[daniel]

Hi! Thanks for the posts.

I don't get why E is not right. The implicit reason for the conclusion here seems to be that to produce meat will cause more people to starve than to produce grain. But what if meat is necessary, Like E said? Why this can not weaken eating meat is morally unacceptable?

Here's my analysis of this question.... let me know what you think, particularly with regard to my explanation of (E).

Premise: Grain can feed more people than meat can.

Premise: Decreasing agricultural resources cannot keep pace with increasing demand.

Conclusion: Eating meat will be morally unacceptable in the near future.

This argument makes a number of assumptions, including: 1) An activity (consuming meat) is not morally acceptable if production of a product consumed by that activity does not make efficient use of limited resources, and 2) land used to raise cows used for meat production can be used (more effectively) to grow grain for human consumption.

Point conceded to opposing viewpoint: A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain.

(A) Out of scope. Whether or not a vegetarian diet is healthy is irrelevant with respect to the argument that is about whether a diet is morally acceptable.

(B) The correct answer. This answer choice attacks the second assumption discussed above. If it is true that cattle can be raised to maturity on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming, then the conclusion that eating meat is morally unacceptable is weakened (the decreasing agricultural resources becomes less of an issue with respect to meat production.)

(C) Out of scope. This answer addresses a point that is conceded (that meat is more nutritious than grain) to an opposing viewpoint. While this does not impact the argument, it does weaken the opposing viewpoint.

(D) Out of scope. This answer choice has nothing to do with the argument core, but attempts to address a potential cause of a problem referenced in the argument’s premise. Since this does not attack an assumption made in the argument core, it does not weaken the argument.

(E) Out of scope. Diet composed solely of grain products? This answer choice does not weaken the conclusion that eating meat will soon be morally unacceptable. This answer choice is attractive if the reader equates "diet composed solely of grain products" with "diets that exclude meat," but this actually goes too far and excludes fruits, vegetables, candy, and many other foods, as well. If the answer choice said "Diets that exclude meat are inadequate for human health," it would probably have the effect of weakening the argument, or at least it would be much closer to being correct.

[missbenyamin]

I apologize if the previous answers have adressed this already, but reading them is confusing me a bit.

I'm just curious if my analysis of the incorrect answers (the reason why they are incorrect) is accurate:

A - doesn't address moral issue (as stated in the conclusion) or anything about increasing population, etc (as stated in the premise). How can you possibly weaken an argument without addressing anything in the premises or conclusion?

B - correct because it addresses the second premise ("With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production...")

C - irrelevant to points made in premise and conclusion and if anything, if this was true, this could possibly provide support for the conclusion (i'm not going to try to explain that, don't think it's super important)

D- out of scope - doesn't address any part of the premises or conclusion

E - does not address address premises/conclusion (basically why the majority of answers are wrong and B is right - B only addresses one specific part of one premise, but this is more than any of the answer does, so it makes B correct).

Any validation/criticism of my analysis is welcome!