PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 23
Some vegetarians have argued that there are two(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(20 more words not shown)
- AIt is used(11 more words not shown)
- BIt is used(15 more words not shown)
- CIt is used(10 more words not shown)
- DIt is used(17 more words not shown)
- EIt is used(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If someone gives two reasons and says either one is enough, knocking down one reason doesn't automatically knock down their position. A vegetarian could say, 'Even if eating meat benefited my health, I still wouldn't want to live at another conscious creature's expense.'
But notice how strong the author's hypothetical is. Eating meat isn't merely helpful; suppose it's essential to good health. That raises a harder question: would the ethical concern still settle the decision when abstaining would cost us our health? Different people might answer differently. We don't have to resolve that ethical debate to understand what the author is doing.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the role of this hypothetical. Start with the conclusion it supports: the author says the ethical reason would be less clearly enough on its own. So the hypothetical puts pressure on that reason's claimed sufficiency. It isn't a report that humans actually need meat, and it doesn't establish that vegetarianism is wrong.
Working the answers
- A
The author isn't disproving the whole vegetarian position. The conclusion is narrower: under the imagined circumstances, one particular reason would be less clearly sufficient. A hypothetical can test an argument, but this one doesn't establish the factual conditions or the sweeping conclusion A describes.
- B
The opening position presents each reason as enough by itself. But showing that the reasons are independent isn't what the author uses the hypothetical to accomplish. Look at the last sentence: it questions whether the ethical concern would still be enough. B pulls us toward a relationship between the two reasons when the stated conclusion concerns the strength of one of them.
- C
We're asked to suppose that meat is essential to good health. Supposing something for the sake of discussion doesn't prove it actually happens. The author supplies no evidence that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy. More importantly, the hypothetical is used to reconsider the ethical reason, not to establish a nutritional finding.
- DCorrect
The hypothetical introduces a possible cost to human health that might outweigh the concern about living at conscious animals' expense. The author uses that possibility to cast doubt on whether the ethical concern is, by itself, sufficient.
This matches the cautious conclusion: less clear, not conclusively false. The animal-consciousness concern can still matter even if it doesn't settle every possible case. We can identify this role without agreeing with the author's ethical judgment.
- E
Even if this ethical reason weren't sufficient in the imagined circumstances, that wouldn't eliminate every sufficient reason for avoiding meat. Other reasons could exist, and the actual health circumstances could differ. E expands a limited challenge into the claim that no sufficient reason exists at all.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.