Meat grown in a Petri dish? Sounds like science fiction, but it isn't. Scientists at Windhaven University in the Netherlands have grown invitro meat using cells from a live pig to replicate growth in a Petri dish. They haven't been able to actually taste the pork they have grown because of lab rules. Nevertheless, there's potential here for some huge benefits
Meat grown in a Petri dish? Sounds like science fiction, but it isn't. Scientists at Windhaven University in the Netherlands have grown invitro meat using cells from a live pig to replicate growth in a Petri dish. They haven't been able to actually taste the pork they have grown because of lab rules. Nevertheless, there's potential here for some huge benefits
The correct option is D It could mean not only an end to killing animals
for food, but also a significant saving of energy on maintaining abattoirs
As the last sentence ends by stating that there's potential for huge benefits to follow due to the success in growing meat in the lab, we need to look for answer options which talk about probable benefits. Option (a) can be deemed irrelevant as it's not necessary that being able to grow meat in the lab would lead to a ban on killing animals for food. Neither would it mandatorily help strengthen measures to fight poaching. Option (b) is outside the scope of the passage and hence can be rejected. Option (c) seems close, but can be rejected due to the use of the word "They” which makes it ambiguous. When we talk of benefits, we are not referring to any particular group of people, alone being benefitted. So option (c) is incorrect. Option (d) fits in beautifully by stating valid benefits, using the tentative word "could” and maintaining the flow of the passage and hence clearly stands out as the right answer choice.
Hint- options (a) and (c) - the words "would not” and "need” make the sentence strong. We are not looking at a definite solution but a plausible potential . Hence, these options can be eliminated
It could mean not only an end to killing animals for food, but also a significant saving of energy on maintaining abattoirs
As the last sentence ends by stating that there's potential for huge benefits to follow due to the success in growing meat in the lab, we need to look for answer options which talk about probable benefits. Option (a) can be deemed irrelevant as it's not necessary that being able to grow meat in the lab would lead to a ban on killing animals for food. Neither would it mandatorily help strengthen measures to fight poaching. Option (b) is outside the scope of the passage and hence can be rejected. Option (c) seems close, but can be rejected due to the use of the word "They” which makes it ambiguous. When we talk of benefits, we are not referring to any particular group of people, alone being benefitted. So option (c) is incorrect. Option (d) fits in beautifully by stating valid benefits, using the tentative word "could” and maintaining the flow of the passage and hence clearly stands out as the right answer choice.
Hint- options (a) and (c) - the words "would not” and "need” make the sentence strong. We are not looking at a definite solution but a plausible potential . Hence, these options can be eliminated
