Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q23 Some vegetarians have argued that

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Some vegetarians have argued that there are two individually sufficient reasons for not eating meat—one based on health considerations, and the other based on the aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures.

Conclusion (implicit)

It's possible that one of the reasons vegetarians cite as sufficient for avoiding meat (we shouldn't live at the expense of other conscious creatures) is not clearly sufficient of a reason to avoid meat.

Evidence

The other reasons they cite as being sufficient for avoiding meat is health considerations.

But if we found out that eating meat was essential to good health, then one of their sufficient reasons would eat the other sufficient reason.

Evaluate

This is a weird "argument". I wouldn't really call it that. Our author can't really be said to be rebutting the vegetarians, because his rebuttal is based on a hypothetical idea.

So I wouldn't be expecting the answer to use classic Premise / Conclusion language.

They're asking us about the "Suppose" sentence. We would probably just say the role is plays is, .

Goal

I have no idea what to call this weird ingredient, so I would just plan to be flexible and consider every answer's language to see if we can match it up.

23.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the supposition that eating meat is essential to good health?

  1. It is used to disprove

    Too Strong: Disprove

    The author is only saying, "In my hypothetical, it would be clear that the vegetarian position is correct". That's far softer than saying, "In my hypothetical, I have disproved their position."

    7% picked this

  2. It is used to show

    Opposite

    It's actually used to show that the two types of reasons would be inextricably interdependent. If eating meat were essential for health considerations, then one of the vegetarians' sufficient reasons for avoiding meat would actually become a reason to eat meat. Meanwhile, their other reason (don't live at the expense of other conscious creatures) would still be saying don't eat meat. Thus, the author is saying, the two reasons would be in conflict with each other. Health considerations would be telling us to eat meat. Anti-murder considerations would be telling us to not eat meat.

    6% picked this

  3. It is used to disprove

    Too Strong: Disprove

    Nothing in this argument approaches the severity of disproving the vegetarians. The author is only saying, "In my hypothetical, it would be less clear that one of their reasons is valid." You can't disprove the claim that a veggie diet is healthy by saying, "Suppose a non-vegetarian diet were essential to good health". That's like saying I can disprove that Biden won the 2020 election by saying, "Suppose Trump won the election."

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is used to weaken

    Why this is right

    The "suppose" sentence is used to get us to the final sentence. Is the final sentence weakening the claim that consciousness of animals is sufficient reason for not eating meat? Sure! It literally says, "Then (in my hypothetical world), it would be less clear that consciousness of animals is enough of a reason (sufficient reason)." Making a claim seem less clearly true = weakening

    Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    80% picked this

  5. It is used to show

    Too Strong: Show No Reason

    The author doesn't think he's proving / showing that the vegetarians are definitely and completely wrong, and thereby proving that there is NO sufficient reason for not eating meat. The author is only considering the two potential sufficient reasons offered by some vegetarians, and she's only trying to say that in a hypothetical world, one of those sufficient reasons wouldn't seem as sufficient.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free