LSAT 129 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 129 - Section 2 - Question 09

June 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:47

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
PT129 S2 Q09
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
157
B
1%
155
C
93%
165
D
2%
157
E
2%
154
129
139
149
 +Easier 144.702 +SubsectionEasier

Even if many more people in the world excluded meat from their diet, world hunger would not thereby be significantly reduced.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that world hunger would not be significantly reduced by many more people excluding meat from their diet.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s nothing about excluding meat from one’s diet that could end up helping to reduce other people’s hunger. This overlooks the possibility that producing less meat in the world might lead to the production of greater amounts of non-meat foods.

A
Hunger often results from natural disasters like typhoons or hurricanes, which sweep away everything in their path.
This connects hunger to natural disasters. But it’s not clear how this relates to meat or other foods. This doesn’t suggest that there’s something about excluding meat that could lead to more food in the world.
B
Both herds and crops are susceptible to devastating viral and other diseases.
This suggests both meat (herds) and non-meat (crops) are vulnerable to diseases. This doesn’t suggest that there’s something about excluding meat that could lead to more food in the world.
C
The amount of land needed to produce enough meat to feed one person for a week can grow enough grain to feed more than ten people for a week.
This shows how a lot of people excluding meat from their diet might lead to more food in the world. We can grow grain instead of meat and feed more people than we could before.
D
Often people go hungry because they live in remote barren areas where there is no efficient distribution for emergency food relief.
This suggests hunger is frequently due to lack of access to relief. This doesn’t suggest that excluding meat can lead to more food in the world or less hunger.
E
Most historical cases of famine have been due to bad social and economic policies or catastrophes such as massive crop failure.
This suggests hunger can be due to social or economic policies. This doesn’t suggest that excluding meat can lead to more food in the world or less hunger.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 129 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply