Question

Students will eat all of their lunches instead of throwing them away.

Lunches would cost more money.
Students learn better when they aren't hungry.
If more people bought lunches, more people would need to be hired.
Students will want to come to school for the good lunches.
Students only want junk food.

Which of these arguments would be most effective if you were going to argue against better school lunches?

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

The argument that would most effectively argue against better school lunches is: "Students only want junk food." This argument plays into the idea that students have specific preferences for unhealthy food options and therefore will not be interested in or benefit from better school lunches.