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
Even if many more people in the world excluded meat from their diet, world hunger would not thereby be significantly reduced.
To weaken this claim, the correct answer should imply that if many more people excluded meat from their diet, world hunger would be significantly reduced.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the claim above?
Hunger often results from natural
This reduces the amount of hunger that can be reduced by increasing the food supply.
3% picked this
Both herds and crops are
This reduces the food produced by both herds and crops. By itself, this doesn’t suggest that a switch to crops would increase the food supply.
1% picked this
The amount of land needed
Why this is right
This suggests that there is an opportunity to produce 10x more food than the current level of meat production just by switching to crops. That might put more than a dent in world hunger.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
87% picked this
Often people go hungry because
This reduces the amount of hunger that can be reduced by increasing the food supply.
3% picked this
Most historical cases of famine
If famines have been caused by bad economic and social policies or catastrophes such as massive crop failure, then crops aren’t necessarily going to produce more food than herds of cattle or flocks of birds producing meat.
5% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.