Question

Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture, it is clear that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods, consisting mainly of raw fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, lean meat, and seafood. Straying from this diet has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems. Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be

The claim that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods plays which one of the following roles in the nutritionist's argument?

(A) It is a conclusion for which the only support offered is the claim that straying from a diet of wild foods has often resulted in chronic illness and other physical problems.

(B) It is a premise for which no justification is provided, but which is used to support the argument’s main conclusion.

(C) It is a phenomenon for which the main conclusion of the nutritionist’s argument is cited as an explanation.

(D) It is an intermediate conclusion for which one claim is offered as support, and which is used in turn to support the argument’s main conclusion.

(E) It is a premise offered in support of the claim that humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture.

Answer 1

The nutritionist's claim that humans are biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods is a premise used to support the main conclusion, without explicit justification provided for that premise itself.

Step-by-step explanation:

The claim that humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods serves as a premise for which no explicit justification is provided, but which is used to support the nutritionist's main argument that a diet consisting of wild foods will result in better health.

As such, the correct role of this claim in the nutritionist's argument is option (B): It is a premise for which no justification is provided, but which is used to support the argument's main conclusion.