I'm having trouble understanding why this is the correct answer is

Melissa, the ethicist tells us that 1 pound of meat has taken 16 pounds of grain for which we could have fed more people albeit less nutritious than with only 1 pound of meat.
Then he states that the so needed healthy production land decreases each year while the human population grows and in order to have enough food for all humans, we shouldn't use the scarce land to yield grain to get us only 1 pound of meat for a few people against 16 pounds of grain for many people.

However if A. 1 pound of meat doesn't take any grain at all(-> 'raised to maturity on grass') and B. the land used isn't appropriate to yield grain(-> 'pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming.'), the ethicist arguments aren't valid and so are the assumptions and conclusions derived from it.

Niels

Hey Melissa,

Let's take this argument apart and see if the correct answer makes more sense.

Premise 1: An animal must be fed 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of meat
Premise 2: 1 lb of meat is more nutritious than 1 lb of grain
Premise 3: Many more people could be fed with 16 lbs of grain than with 1 lb of meat

Premise 4: Grain yields are leveling off
Premise 5: large areas of farmland going out of production each year
Premise 6: the population rapidly expanding

Conclusion: consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable

So, we know we need to look for the answer choice that'll weaken the argument. I can't think of what that might look like at this point (that is, I have no "prediction"). So let's take a look at the answer choices:

(A) This does nothing to weaken the argument. Strike this choice.
(B) **After a read-through, I'm not sure about this choice. Let's read through the rest of the answer choices, and we'll come back to this choice if need be.
(C) This actually strengthens the argument, so this is not even close. Strike this.
(D) This is not going to weaken the argument. It's way off topic.
(E) This seems like a contender, though it seems weaker than (B).

Let's compare choices (B) and (E). Choice (B) says that we could raise cows and sheep on grass grown in areas where grain does not grow. Therefore, we could raise animals for meat without reducing the amount of grain available for people. This fact weakens the argument's conclusion.

How about choice (E)? Well, choice (E) simply says that a diet consisting SOLELY of grain is not healthy. But that doesn't mean people would have to eat meat. If they ate fruit, they would not be eating a diet solely of grain. So choice (E) is definitely wrong.

By process of elimination, it should be clear that (B) is correct.

That's a non sequitur reasoning for disqualifying (E), Brendan.

The conclusion to which we are to find the theoretical statement most detrimental to the Ethicist's argument is that "it will become morally unacceptable to eat meat."

The fact that people can live healthy while avoiding meat consumption is totally and completely irrelevant. The argument is about the morality of eating meat, not whether people can avoid it.

I get what you're saying as far as "supplemental nutrients through fruits and nuts, et al." would strengthen the Ethicist's argument, but that is not the question we are to answer. We are to determine which statement, if true, would weaken the *proposed* argument the most.

Since the Ethicist is not offered an opportunity to offer a retort, and since the Ethicist did not include anything about supplementing the diet of oats in his original argument, (E) most effectively weakens the proposed argument.

The answer is (E), and if you don't think so, you're thinking too far ahead by adding dimensions to the question that do not exist.

I choose answer E.. I was struggling between choosing B or E. I see why B would be the correct answer, I'm just not comfortable with B instead of E. My reasoning is that i didn't understand the last part of the statement in option B.. "..unsuitable for any other kind of farming.."