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.
Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives. But voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems. Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion. Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over time in a democracy.
Summarize Argument
The editor concludes that government intrusion into voters’ lives will not decrease. This is because voters prefer candidates who say they’ll assist with voters’ biggest issues. Acting on these issues costs the government money, which comes from taxes—a form of intrusion.
Notable Assumptions
The editor assumes politicians who promise to provide government assistance actually deliver on this promise. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a need for increased taxes and governmental intrusion.
A
Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises.
This strengthens the argument. It supports the editor’s assumption that politicians who promise to provide government assistance actually deliver on this promise.
B
Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office.
This weakens the argument. It exploits the author’s assumption that politicians who promise to provide government assistance will deliver on this promise.
C
The most common problems people have are financial problems.
This does not affect the argument. Voters prefer candidates who promise to help with their most pressing problems, which don’t also have to be their most common ones. In extension, there is no reason to believe that financial problems are voters’ most pressing problems.
D
Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic countries than it is in democracies.
This does not affect the editor’s argument, which is solely about democracies.
E
Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected.
This does not affect the argument, which doesn’t discuss whether politicians promise to do things they believe should be done—instead, the argument focuses on politicians’ promises and the consequences of them keeping these promises.
Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation _______.
Summary
The philosopher says that nations are not persons, and do not think, feel, or perform actions. They therefore have no moral rights or responsibilities. However, in order for a nation to survive, its citizens must attribute rights and responsibilities to the nation, because this is necessary to drive people to sacrifice for their nation. So, what can we conclude about nations?
In Lawgic:
P1: nation → /person & /think & /feel & /act → /rights & /responsibilities
P2: nation survives → citizens sacrifice → citizens attribute rights & responsibilities
C: ?
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The philosopher’s claims let us conclude that a nation can only survive if its citizens believe something that is false, i.e. that the nation has rights and responsibilities.
A
cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices
This is not supported. The philosopher doesn’t suggest another factor that could be needed to motivate citizens. In fact, the philosopher says this false belief is the only thing that can motivate citizens to make sacrifices, so suggesting another motivator doesn’t make sense.
B
cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false
This is strongly supported. The philosopher establishes that a nation cannot survive unless its citizens attribute rights and responsibilities to it. We know that nations can’t actually have rights and responsibilities, so survival requires citizens to hold a false belief.
C
can never be a target of moral praise or blame
This is not supported. The philosopher doesn’t discuss moral praise and blame, so we don’t know what relationship—if any—they have to concepts like moral rights and responsibilities. Because of that, we can’t say if nations could or could not be targeted.
D
is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf
This is not supported. The philosopher doesn’t bring up the idea of worthiness at all, and definitely doesn’t make a claim about whether or not nations are worthy of their citizens’ sacrifices.
E
should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms
This is anti-supported. The philosopher begins by discussing nations in literal terms (i.e. explaining that they are not literally persons), which strongly implies that it’s legitimate to at least sometimes discuss nations in literal terms.