LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: If the only argument for avoiding meat were ethical (we shouldn’t eat conscious creatures) then it would be less clear that we ought to avoid meat.
REASONING: Vegetarians argue that there are two individually sufficient reasons for eating meat. But if we removed one reason the other might seem less compelling as a sufficient reason.
ANALYSIS: This is an interesting argument. I hesitate to call it good or bad. It’s more thought provoking than anything. Vegetarians think that not hurting animals is a sufficient reason not to eat meat.
But they also think meat is less healthy. So the issue seems clear. Eating meat is more ethical and better for you. So there’s no advantage to eating meat.
But what would vegetarians think if meat was essential for good health? Then vegetarians would face a tough choice. The ethical choice would also make them sick and unhealthy. It’s likely that fewer people would become vegetarians purely on ethical grounds.
It’s purely a thought experiment. The argument does not attempt to prove one way or the other if meat is essential to health or whether meat is instead unhealthy.
The author’s hypothetical situation transforms vegetarianism from an easy choice (it helps us and helps animals) to a hard choice (it hurts us but helps animals).
The author is suggesting that it is both the ethical and self-interested reasons combined that make vegetarianism an easy choice for many people.
This is just a hypothetical argument. We don’t know what the author actually believes is true.
___________
- No. For all we know the author might agree that vegetarians are correct. The argument is a thought experiment.
- Actually the author is suggesting that the two reasons support each other. It’s easier to give up meat for ethical reasons (benefiting others) if we also think that giving it up is healthy (benefiting ourselves).
- No. The author might actually think that vegetarianism is healthy. But he is asking us to imagine what we would think if we were 100% certain that vegetarianism was actually unhealthy. It is totally hypothetical.
- CORRECT. The author is implying that we think ethics is a sufficient reason only because we are also convinced that eating vegetarian is healthy too. The author is suggesting that we actually think it is both reasons combined that make a sufficient justification.
- Not quite. It could still be the case that ethics are a sufficient reason to avoid meat. The author is making a hypothetical argument about what would happen if that weren’t true.
More Resources for Role in Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Role in Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers role in argument questions.
For (E), am I right in thinking that both the self-interested reason (health considerations) and the ethical reason (don’t hurt animals) could still be sufficient reasons not to eat meat?
Self-interested reason: The author only hypothetically assumed that the self-interested reason doesn’t exist, so it could still exist and be a sufficient reason not to eat meat.
Ethical reason: The author only questions whether it is clear that this is a sufficient reason for not eating meat. The author didn’t try to prove that it isn’t a sufficient reason.
You’re right about the ethical reason, but in this context, the health consideration can’t “still exist”. The question specifically asks about the role of the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health. By stating that meat is essential for health, that effectively removes health considerations from the list of reasons for vegetarianism. Your goal in answering the question isn’t to determine whether this hypothetical is viable or not, but rather what role the hypothetical plays in the argument.
Note also that the argument isn’t making claims about whether eating meat is good or bad for health, nor whether it’s ethical or not. It’s simply arguing that the ethical consideration isn’t a sufficient reason on its own, which is what D is saying.
Thanks for the explanation!
However, I actually thought the original explanation on this site also agreed that health considerations could be a sufficient reason.
Thought there was a typo, as the explanation says: “It could still be the case that ethics [typo: health?} are a sufficient reason to avoid meat. The author is making a hypothetical argument about what would happen if that weren’t true [this seems to refer to health because that’s what the author is hypothetically presuming not to be true].”
Apologies for the late response! The comment queue gets backed up sometimes.
You’re right about the ethical reason – the author isn’t claiming it’s definitely insufficient, only that it would be less clearly sufficient if the health-based reason weren’t available. So yes, the ethical reason could still be enough on its own, even though the argument is casting doubt on that.
Looking back, I overstated things a bit in the last sentence of my original comment when I said the argument is simply arguing that the ethical reason isn’t a sufficient one. That goes further than what the stimulus actually says. A better reading is that the argument weakens the claim that ethics alone is sufficient, not that it definitively rejects it.
On the health point, you’re right that it’s only a hypothetical. But, since the argument asks us to suppose that eating meat is essential to good health, we have to treat the health reason as no longer valid in this context. So the health reason doesn’t still exist as a reason for vegetarianism because, in this context, meat is ESSENTIAL to good health.
About the possible typo in E, I see where the confusion comes from, but it’s not actually a typo. The word “that” in “if that weren’t true” refers to ethics being a sufficient reason, not the health-based one. The author is basically saying: Let’s imagine that the ethical reason ISN’T sufficient – how would that change things?.
That’s also why E is too strong. The argument doesn’t say there’s no sufficient reason for avoiding meat, just that if the health reason is removed, the ethical one becomes less clearly sufficient. That’s a weakening, not a rejection, which is exactly what D describes.
Hope that helps clarify!
I would just add for answer choice E, that it could be there are other sufficient reasons that other vegetarians would argue for, to say “no sufficient reasons” is too broad.
Yes, that’s correct. Thanks for pointing that out!