Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain, but sixteen pounds of grain could feed many more people than could a pound of meat. With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding, we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the ethicist’s argument?
(A) Even though it has been established that a vegetarian diet can be healthy, many people prefer to eat meat and are willing to pay for it.
(B) Often, cattle or sheep can be raised to maturity on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming.
(C) If a grain diet is supplemented with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value equivalent to that of a diet containing meat.
(D) Although prime farmland near metropolitan areas is being lost rapidly to suburban development, we could reverse this trend by choosing to live in areas that are already urban.
(E) Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely of grain products is not adequate for human health.
A. Incorrect. Personal preference isn’t relevant to moral questions. Just because some people might prefer a certain lifestyle doesn’t mean it’s morally justified—just as preferring theft doesn’t make stealing acceptable.
B. Correct. This supports the idea that some meat production can increase the total food supply—for example, grazing animals like cows and sheep that don’t compete with grain production. This directly challenges the argument’s premise that meat always reduces available food.
C. Incorrect. This actually strengthens the argument. If the lower nutritional value of grain isn't a concern, it makes grain-based diets more viable—supporting the case against meat consumption.
D. Incorrect. The argument mentions loss of farmland but doesn’t explain its causes. If only a small portion is lost to suburban expansion, shifting to urban living may not help much. Plus, just because people could stop urban sprawl doesn't mean they will. The conclusion is about moral action, not practical likelihood.
E. Incorrect. The author doesn’t claim people should eat only grains. A no-meat diet can include a wide variety of plant-based foods, so this objection misses the point.
