PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 24

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  This recommends reducing production when that would improve biodiversity. But the economist is considering what to do if we choose economic growth, which requires increasing production. A doesn't tell us why, under that choice, we should change our techniques. It sends production in the other direction.

• B
  Correct

  Here's another gap: why must we protect biodiversity at all? It's easy to supply that value ourselves because we don't want to lose the frogs. But the economist hasn't supplied it.

  Without B, someone could say, “I want economic growth. I'll produce more using conventional methods, even if that costs us some species.” The premise doesn't rule out that choice. It says changing methods is required to increase production without losing biodiversity; it doesn't yet say we should avoid that loss.

  B supplies that missing instruction. If we pursue growth, we should preserve biodiversity while doing it. Growth requires more agricultural production, and preserving biodiversity while producing more requires abandoning conventional agriculture. Now we have a reason to change the techniques.

  This isn't my initial prediction about how radical the change must be. It addresses a more basic gap: why the environmental condition should constrain the growth plan at all. That directly helps justify the recommendation.

• C

  This places a condition on when economic growth should be sustained: agricultural production must keep increasing. The passage already tells us that sustaining growth requires more agricultural production. What we need is a reason to change how we achieve that increase. C still lets someone pursue growth through conventional farming while accepting a loss of biodiversity.

• D

  “No more important” could mean equally important or less important. It doesn't tell us that protecting biodiversity must take priority whenever pursuing growth would threaten it. We need a rule against accepting that loss; D doesn't provide one. Don't read it as “Biodiversity doesn't matter,” either. That would go beyond what it says.

• E

  This says a radical modification should happen only if it helps us increase production further. That's a restriction on making a change, not a reason that the change should be made here.

  It also leaves biodiversity out. Even if a new technique could produce more, E doesn't explain why we must choose a technique that protects species rather than simply keep conventional farming and accept the environmental cost.