Question

read this statement: was the diet of a poor urban family in the early 20th century that much more nutritious than a mcdonalds combo platter? maybe it was; id just like to know. in a culinary wasteland, what argument made in fast food nation is crossen refuting with the statement above? a. people would demand change in the fast - food industry if they could see behind the scenes. b. the current american diet lacks nutrition as a result of the consumption of fast food. c. people who eat fast food are ignorant and do not know what a proper meal tastes like. d. fast food causes severe health problems and should be banned by the u.s. congress.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze the statement and options:

• The statement questions if a poor urban family's early 20th - century diet was more nutritious than a McDonald's combo. This relates to the nutritional value of fast food vs. past diets.
• Option A: The statement has nothing to do with people demanding change by seeing behind the scenes of the fast - food industry. Eliminate A.
• Option B: If the argument in "Fast Food Nation" is that the current American diet (with fast food) lacks nutrition, Crossen's statement (questioning if past poor diets were more nutritious than McDonald's) is refuting this. Because if past poor diets could be more nutritious, then the claim that current fast - food - based diet lacks nutrition (implying fast food is the cause of poor nutrition) is challenged.
• Option C: The statement doesn't address people's ignorance about proper meal taste. Eliminate C.
• Option D: The statement doesn't discuss banning fast food or health problems severe enough for a ban. Eliminate D.

Answer:

B. The current American diet lacks nutrition as a result of the consumption of fast food.