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

DarklordDarklord Alum Member
edited June 2020 in Logical Reasoning 586 karma

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/

Comments

  • lsatplaylistlsatplaylist Member
    5249 karma

    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.

  • DarklordDarklord Alum Member
    586 karma

    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?

  • lsatplaylistlsatplaylist Member
    5249 karma

    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.

  • DarklordDarklord Alum Member
    586 karma

    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"?

Sign In or Register to comment.