Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. The author doesn't share her opinion on vegetarianism—she could believe that eating meat is wrong (especially for health reasons). What she takes issue with is the assertion that one specific reason for vegetarianism is sufficient to justify the practice.

Incorrect. The vegetarians claim that they're independent and the author doesn't disagree with this assertion. Instead she questions whether one of the reasons is individually sufficient to justify vegetarianism.

Incorrect. By bringing up a supposition that meat is required for health—in other words, vegetarianism isn't healthy—the author almost implicitly concedes that it is healthy if that assumption is false. Since she never establishes the assumption/supposition as true, we can't say her argument is designed to show vegetarianism isn't healthy.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Vegetarians: Both of these reasons are alone enough to justify not eating meat—1) Health considerations; 2) It's bad to eat conscious creatures

Author: Suppose that humans require meat to be healthy. Then the second reason wouldn't necessarily justify being a vegetarian.

Answer Anticipation:
Since this is an argument structure question with two viewpoints, it can be helpful to pull them apart when summarizing them. This will help us figure out which viewpoint the statement in question is justifying and, if it's a part of the author's rebuttal, let us define how it works within that response.

Here, the Vegetarians argue that there are two reasons to be vegetarian that are each enough, alone, to justify it.

The author, on the other hand, goes through a thought experiment—she assumes that meat is necessary for human health. In that case, the second reason provided by the vegetarians no longer clearly justifies vegetarianism.

The statement in question is the thought experiment, and it's designed to show that one of the author's two reasons isn't enough, by itself, to justify vegetarianism (since that reason also requires meat not being essential to human health). Let's find an answer that reflects that!

Answer Explanation:
The thought experiment is meant to show that the second reason vegetarians claim is individually sufficient to be vegetarian isn't, by itself, enough justification. As such, this answer describes the role of the statement in question in the author's rebuttal, and this is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
In an Argument Structure question with two viewpoints, always be sure you know whether the statement in question is a part of the opposing viewpoint or the author's. Also, when it's a part of an author's rebuttal, make sure you know how it interacts with the opposing view!

Incorrect. The statement in question only addresses the second reason. While it does address health, and that was the first reason given for being vegetarian, it supposes that vegetarianism isn't healthy, and so it can't serve to question whether it's healthy. It's like saying, "But suppose you're wrong . . . " to disprove someone's argument!