1. The problem asks which statement most weakens Ying's argument that we should stop buying palm oil to save rainforests. 2. Ying's argument is based on the premise that growing palm oil trees requires cutting down vast areas of rainforests. 3. To weaken this argument, we need a statement that challenges the idea that switching to soybean oil is better for rainforests. 4. Let's analyze the options: - A: Palm oil is also used in bath products such as shampoo. (This does not address rainforest destruction directly.) - B: People are using less oil in cooking than they used to. (This reduces overall oil demand but doesn't weaken the specific argument about rainforest destruction.) - C: Growing soybeans also involves the destruction of rainforests. (This directly challenges the idea that soybean oil is a better alternative for saving rainforests.) - D: Palm oil is more frequently listed in recipes than soybean oil. (This relates to usage frequency, not environmental impact.) 5. Therefore, statement C most weakens Ying's argument because it shows that switching to soybean oil may not save rainforests if soybean cultivation also destroys them. Final answer: C