LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 21

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 21

June 2007

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:20

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT123 S3 Q21	+LR	Weaken +Weak Math +Math Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 5% 145 B 48% 154 C 6% 143 D 5% 148 E 36% 150	142 153 164	+Harder	144.044 +SubsectionEasier

Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain, but sixteen pounds of grain could feed many more people than could a pound of meat. With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding, we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that meat consumption will soon be immoral. This is because meat production is more resource-intensive than the plant-based alternative, and already agricultural resources are diminishing while the human population continues expanding.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that crops that feed animals can be efficiently used to feed humans, and that the land on which animals are raised could be used to grow those same crops. The author also assumes that because animal agriculture has undesirable consequences, the mere practice of eating meat is itself morally unacceptable. The author therefore assumes that all forms of meat consumption exhibit the same problems found in the animal agriculture he describes.

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.

It doesn’t matter what people “prefer.” The author is drawing a moral judgement about what people should do.

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

Certain types of animals are raised with resources that couldn’t be put towards direct human use. Thus, the author’s argument glosses over an entire category of meat consumption while drawing a moral conclusion about meat consumption, generally.

If a grain diet is supplemented with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value equivalent to that of a diet containing meat.

If anything, this strengthens the author’s argument by showing that plant-based diets can satisfy humanity’s nutritional needs. We need to weaken his argument.

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.

Even if this trend could be reversed, we have no reason to believe it actually will be reversed. This doesn’t challenge anything in the author’s argument.

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

The author never said humans should only eat grains. He simply claimed eating meat will soon be morally unacceptable.

LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 21

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 21

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 123 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel