Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat—one based on health considerations, and the other based on the aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures. But suppose that eating meat were essential to good health for humans. Then it would be less clear that an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is enough of a reason to stop eating meat.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author takes on a claim by vegetarians that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat. The author presents a hypothetical that would make it unclear if the second reason is actually individually sufficient. If eating meat is essential to good health, it becomes unclear if empathy for other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to not eat meat.

Identify Argument Part
This is a hypothetical premise used to demonstrate that it is not clear if an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is a sufficient reason to stop eating meat.

A
It is used to disprove the vegetarian position that we should not eat meat.
This inaccurately identifies the position being disputed. The author is weakening the idea that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat, not that we should avoid meat.
B
It is used to show that the two types of reasons cited in favor of vegetarianism are independent.
The supposition actually shows that the two types of reasons are somewhat dependent. The second reason doesn’t hold up as well if the first reason is failed. Therefore, they are interconnected.
C
It is used to disprove the claim that a vegetarian diet is healthy.
The author is presenting a hypothetical premise, not actually disputing the health of vegetarianism.
D
It is used to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat.
By presenting this supposition, the individual strength of this reason for not eating meat is weakened. It shows that this reason may not be completely sufficient.
E
It is used to show that there is no sufficient reason for not eating meat.
The author is weakening one of two potentially sufficient reasons. The first reason remains sufficient in this argument.

10 comments

Theoretically, analog systems are superior to digital systems. A signal in a pure analog system can be infinitely detailed, while digital systems cannot produce signals that are more precise than their digital units. With this theoretical advantage there is a practical disadvantage, however. Since there is no limit on the potential detail of the signal, the duplication of an analog representation allows tiny variations from the original, which are errors. These errors tend to accumulate as signals are duplicated, until this “noise” obliterates the information embodied in the original signal.

Summary
In theory, analog systems are better than digital systems. This is because analog signals can be infinitely detailed, whereas digital signals cannot, since they can’t be more precise than their digital units. But there’s an associated disadvantage of analog systems. Since there’s no limit to the level of detail in analog signals, duplication of analog signals allows room for variations from the original (called errors), which tend to build up as the analog signal is further duplicated. At some point, the number of errors in an analog signal makes it impossible to understand the information contained in the original signal.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
When duplicated, digital signals allow for less variation than analog signals allow.
Digital systems may be better for signals that must be duplicated many times.

A
Many ideas that work well in theory do not work well in practice.
Unsupported. Analog systems are at a disadvantage when signals have to be copied many times. That doesn’t imply that analog systems don’t work well in practice.
B
Analog representation of information is impractical because we do not need infinitely detailed information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that we don’t need infinitely detailed information. Maybe we do, and it would be better for us if there were a way to achieve such infinite detail.
C
Digital systems are the best information systems because error cannot occur in the emission of digital signals.
Unsupported. Although digital systems are not as prone to error in duplication as are analog systems, that doesn’t imply that there are never any errors associated with emission of digital signals.
D
Analog systems are inferior to digital systems for most practical purposes.
Unsupported. Although analog systems are worse for purposes that involve duplicating a signal many times, that doesn’t imply they’re worse for “most” practical purposes. Maybe most practical purposes don’t involve numerous copies.
E
Digital systems are preferable to analog systems when the signal must be reproduced many times.
Strongly supported. We’re told that analog systems lead to a build-up of errors in the signal when the signal is copied many times. Digital system don’t have this problem to the same extent. So, digital systems are preferable when we need the signal to be copied many times.

6 comments