Self-study
Health association: Support In certain studies, most volunteers who used to eat meat have permanently excluded meat from their diets and now eat only vegetables and fruits. █████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █ ███████
███████ ████████████ ██ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █ ████████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████
Objective: Find a Conclusion that Is Weakened
This question is an unusual one, so let's start by unpacking the question stem. We are asked to identify a conclusion supported by the health association's argument, but more importantly, which is weakened by the critic's response. We can think of this as a modified weakening question, where we already have the weakening answer (the critic's response), and we have to complete the argument that is weakened. The same logic applies as in any weakening question: we're focusing on support between the association's evidence and the possible conclusions, and thinking about how the critic's response undermines that support.
Stimulus Breakdown
The health association is talking about studies where meat-eaters become vegetarian. The associaton says that most volunteers in these studies became permanently vegetarian, with no side-effects. This supports the claim that meat-eaters can become vegetarian without suffering. Keep in mind, all of this is evidence that will support the conclusion we find in the answer choices.
The critic's response points out some issues with the studies cited by the health association. The critic says there's a sampling issue: all the volunteers already felt positively about vegetarianism. The critic also says the results weren't so clear: although most volunteers may have successfully become vegetarian, that still left many who were not able to change diets.
Let's think about what conclusion the critic's response could weaken. The critic seems to be taking issue with the generalizability of the studies. Sure, some meat-eaters can become vegetarian, but not all. So the conclusion that this response would weaken will probably be a claim that most or all meat-eaters could become vegetarian.
23.
The critic’s response would most █████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████████
a
The diets of ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████████
(A) looks really promising: it's talking about most meat-eaters switching to vegetarianism, which is what the critic's response would probably weaken. But (A) specifically mentions meat-eaters' diets being improved, and this isn't actually something the stimulus mentions.
(A) is a great trap answer: it looks almost correct, but then fakes us out by changing the topic. The stimulus is about people's ability to switch to a different diet; (A) pivots to the quality of different diets. The critic's response wouldn't weaken (A), because they're discussing different topics.
b
Among those who ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████
Like (A), (B) is a trap answer, but this time one that relies on a misunderstanding of the question stem. (B) aims at strengthening the critic's response: both undermine the idea that the study results can be generalized to anyone.
However, (B) itself is not weakened by the critic's response. The two are aligned, whereas the conclusion we're looking for would be opposed to what the critic is saying.
c
The number of ██████ ███ ████ ███████ █ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████
The stimulus isn't concerned with how many meat-eaters are actually switching to vegetarianism. Statistics about vegetarianism play no part in either argument, so this statistic would neither be supported by the association's evidence, nor weakened by the critic's response.
d
Participants in the █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████
Like (C), (D) goes off on a different topic compared to the stimulus. (D) wouldn't be weakened by the critic's response because the two are discussing different things. Nothing the critic says suggests volunteers would regret trying to become vegetarian, successful or not.
e
Most people, if ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ███
(E) says that most meat-eaters could become vegetarian, but the critic's argument suggests that even highly-motivated meat-eaters frequently have difficulty becoming vegetarian. The critic's response undermines (E) by showing that the study results can't be easily generalized to all meat-eaters.