Everyone should replace the meat that they eat with fish because fish is a healthier choice. Fish is high in protein, as well as a wide range of vitamins and minerals, and very low in unhealthy fats. In fact, the American Heart Association, one of the nation’s largest health charities, recommends eating at least two servings of fish per week.
A student is developing a counterclaim to this argument. Which counterclaim is the most fair and effective?
(1 point)
Responses
People should avoid fish because studies have shown that people who eat fish regularly have a 22 percent higher risk of skin cancer.
People should avoid fish because studies have shown that people who eat fish regularly have a 22 percent higher risk of skin cancer.
Some large fish such as grouper and bluefin tuna are known to have elevated levels of mercury, and consuming them in excessive amounts can cause a wide range of health problems.
Some large fish such as grouper and bluefin tuna are known to have elevated levels of mercury, and consuming them in excessive amounts can cause a wide range of health problems.
Workers in the fishing industries are badly mistreated, and if you eat fish then you are supporting this horrible and unethical industry.
Workers in the fishing industries are badly mistreated, and if you eat fish then you are supporting this horrible and unethical industry.
People should avoid fish because the fish are treated cruelly from the moment they are caught until they are brought to market.
People should avoid fish because the fish are treated cruelly from the moment they are caught until they are brought to market.
1 answer
The most fair and effective counterclaim to the argument that fish is a healthier replacement for meat is:
Some large fish such as grouper and bluefin tuna are known to have elevated levels of mercury, and consuming them in excessive amounts can cause a wide range of health problems.
This counterclaim directly addresses a potential health risk associated with eating fish, making it a relevant and logical response to the health benefits presented in the original argument.
