Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Anna Mitchell defends moral vegetarianism. "Animals suffer; avoiding their products reduces suffering," Mitchell argues. "The taste pleasure of meat cannot justify the systematic harm industrial farming causes."
Text 2: Agricultural ethicist Dr. James Cook proposes reform. "Eliminating animal products entirely isn't necessary," Cook contends. "Humanely raised, pasture-based livestock can live good lives. Reform of farming practices addresses suffering without requiring abstention."
Based on the texts, Cook's position shares which concern with Mitchell while proposing a different response?
Concern about animal suffering
Concern about human nutrition
Concern about economic impacts on farmers
Concern about environmental sustainability
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the correct answer. Both prioritize animal suffering—Mitchell through abstention, Cook through reformed practices. Cook's "humane" approach targets the same suffering Mitchell identifies but with different solution.
- Evidence: Cook: animals "can live good lives"—addressing suffering differently.
- Reasoning: Shared concern, alternative approach.
- Conclusion: Animal welfare motivates both, with different prescriptions.
Choice B is incorrect because nutrition isn't discussed. Choice C is incorrect because farmer economics aren't mentioned. Choice D is incorrect because environment isn't the focus.