Hi there, thank you for your post. This question asks you to identify the role played in the argument in the stimulus by the claim that "eating meat is essential to good health."
The argument in the stimulus starts by noting that some vegetarians have argued that there are two independently sufficient reasons for not eating meat: (1) health, and (2) aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures.
But then the author of the stimulus says, "suppose that eating meat were essential to good health for humans." The role played by this statement is "to weaken the claim that the consciousness of animals is a sufficient reason for not eating meat."
It is not used "to show that the two types of reasons are independent"—that is the vegetarians' view (there are two independently sufficient reasons).
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any other questions.
