PTJ07.S3.Q21-- Help-- weaken argument question

Darklord

Hi,

I was really stuck on this question because both B and D look like they weaken the argument here. Can anyone explain why D does not weaken the argument?

Any #help would be appreciated!

HELP

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-3-question-21/

studyingandrestudying

So grain consumption is a concern and maybe people should change their diets. But environmentally sound is different from whether something is moral, and "morally unacceptable" is a vague term--people can easily fall on different sides of a debate, and sometimes it's not possible to make everyone happy. So a big leap was made and we have to find an answer that calls the author out on this. Answer A is irrelevant as we have no information on people's favorite foods or how this relates to the environmental discussion in the stimulus. Answer B describes farmland sometimes not being suitable for anything except livestock, which is a statement the author would have to respond to--they don't comment on this idea and they would need to if they were in a debate because it's saying some farm acres would go to waste if they weren't used for livestock to live on. Answer C isn't helpful because all it does is say hey someone can be a healthy vegetarian, but that doesn't tell us what non-animal protein sources are--maybe they're just as bad for the environment as meat; we don't know. Answer D talks about a possible strategy for land conservation, but it doesn't say anything about what plants or animals live on farmland, and the argument is based on a claim about what the land is used for, not just the amount of farmable land. Answer E, like Answer C, only discusses human nutrition/diet, but says nothing about land and what land is used for.

Darklord

Wait but @lsatplaylist couldn't D weaken the argument by making it so that there is more farmland resources available for animals and/or plants, and as a result, make it less likely that eating meat will constrain our resources to the point that it becomes morally unacceptable to eat meat?

studyingandrestudying

If the stimulus had that information, then yes, but we didn't get enough of a discussion on that extension of the comment. If it was just an argument about land use, then D would work out better, but we don't get that in this discussion. I hope that helps a bit.

Darklord

So you are saying @lsatplaylist that the reason why D is wrong is because the stimulus talks about "large areas of farmland" but not all farmland, so D requires an improper assumption that the metropolitan farmland is part of these decreasing "large areas of farmland" that the argument is talking about"?