It is soooo good to know your experience guys!

I'll be 33 when I apply, and it makes me feel relieved...

I was worried about it too

thanks you all

Guys, I think I really messed up this question! =/

I choose E because I applied the rule of chronology =(

"if they say A cause B, then A has to occur before B," and E says B occured before A, so it weakens the argument.

Can someone please help me?

I'll try it =)

I figured out that we need to weaken the part of the conclusion stating "the consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable", and why it's gonna be unacceptable? because the premise says "there's no areas of farmland to grow crops" and "population is expanding" (= which means is consuming more). So, we don't have enough space to cultive crops neither enough food to feed people. Hence, if we take the (few) grain we have to feed animals, there's not gonna have grain to feed people. We need to use all areas of farmland to grow crops to feed people, not to raise animals.

Thus B most weaken the conclusion because the specific area that is not suitable for farming (which means it is impossible to use to grow crops) is acceptable to use to raise animals, since sheep and cattle are fed of grass that grows in such areas. So, if the animals are fed of whatever food that is not the grain that is supposed to feed people, it is moral acceptable.

I hope it helps!

Actually I think the sentence "the end’s value is thus the only reason for the action" has the same meaning as the conclusion: "it's clear that nothing will justify a means except an end's value"

See: the end's value is thus the only reason for the action (the action = the means [what you do to get to the end], end = outcome, and end's value is the reason of doing the action).

So, the end's value is thus the only reason for the action = end's value is the only reason that justifies the means.

The conclusion says: "it's clear that nothing will justify a means except an end's value", which is the same as: "only an end's value will justify a means", and also is the same as: end's value is the only reason that justifies the means (brought from the first sentence).

Overall, I think both sentences have the same meaning, but what defines the last as the conclusion is because the first one brings up definition of end and end's value.

I hope it can help.