The article doesn't go into enough details for us to evaluate the study. Some possible scenarios: They offered meat-free options that mirrored the meat-contai

The article doesn't go into enough details for us to evaluate the study. Some possible scenarios: They offered meat-free options that mirrored the meat-containing options. For example, they had beef lasagna and as an alternative vegetarian lasagna. If this dramatically increased the selection of vegetarian options it seems like a good indicator that there was a preference for meat free options that wasn't being satisfied. They offered meat-free lasagna as an additional option, independent of the other available choices (so no 'regular' lasagna was offered at the same time). If this increased selection of vegetarian options, it tells us absolutely nothing. It's quite possible that many people 'felt like lasagna' that day, and that was that. To phrase this scenario another way: they could increase the selection of vegetarian options to 100% by eliminating all meat from the cafeteria, but this wouldn't demonstrate any preference for vegetarian by the customers. Since whoever wrote this article didn't mention the methodology, my guess is that the methodology is more like my second scenario, which is to say that it was not a meaningful study but they don't want to say that because they are pushing an agenda. Either that or it's incompetence, I think Hanlon's Razor attaches at this point.