There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products. (Peter Singer, Animal Liberation)
A) nonargument; explanation
B) argument; conclusion: It has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products.
C) argument; conclusion: There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs.
D) nonargument; unsupported assertion

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The passage presents an argument with the conclusion that eating flesh cannot be defended on nutritional grounds, supported by the premise that our nutritional needs can be more efficiently met with high-protein vegetable products.

There Can Be No Defense of Eating Flesh in Terms