PrepTest 129, Section 2, Question 9
Even if many more people in the world(13 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AHunger often results(14 more words not shown)
- BBoth herds and(9 more words not shown)
- CThe amount of(26 more words not shown)
- DOften people go(18 more words not shown)
- EMost historical cases(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would eating less meat really make no significant difference to world hunger? The passage gives us that claim without a supporting explanation, so we should keep open both how it might be true and how it might fail.
Perhaps the main obstacle in some places is getting food to people. If people who already have plenty simply change what they eat, that need not fix a broken distribution system elsewhere. On the other hand, what if producing meat uses resources that could produce much more food directly for people?
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to challenge the claim. I would look for a reason that excluding meat could make enough additional food available to matter. We do not need to show that the dietary change solves every cause of hunger, but we do need a connection between that change and feeding more people.
Working the answers
- A
Natural disasters can explain why people go hungry, but this does not show that eating less meat would reduce hunger significantly. The same storm could destroy food under either dietary pattern. We need a reason the change would help, not merely another cause of hunger.
- B
Both livestock and crops can suffer from disease. That shared vulnerability does not establish an advantage from replacing meat with plant foods. It leaves the claim that the dietary change would make little difference unchallenged.
- CCorrect
The same amount of land can produce meat to feed one person for a week or grain to feed more than ten people for a week. That is a substantial difference in how many people the resource can feed.
If many people stopped eating meat, shifting some of that land toward grain could greatly increase the available food. Distribution and other obstacles might remain, but C gives a concrete reason to doubt the sweeping claim that the change would not significantly reduce hunger.
- D
This describes the sort of distribution obstacle that could explain why a dietary change would not be enough. It does not show that excluding meat would overcome that obstacle or make hunger significantly less severe. The answer fits the author's concern better than it challenges it.
- E
A history of harmful policies, catastrophes, and crop failures tells us about causes of famine. It does not establish that a shift away from meat would make a significant improvement. We still need a comparison between the food available under the two dietary patterns, which C supplies.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.