Thanks for the question! Disproving one reason doesn’t weaken the other. the argument is just weakening one reason. Remember, the two reasons are health considerations and aversion to eating at the expense of the conscious creatures. So what does the claim that eating meat is necessary for good health do? It goes against the overall argument, specifically by attacking the first argument, but it says that “it would be less clear that an aversion to living at the expense of other conscious creatures is enough of a reason to stop eating meat.” Remember, we have to assume the statements in the stimulus are true. And so taking that as true, it does do (D), and that’s why it’s the correct answer.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
