PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 18
Contrary to Malthus's arguments, human food-producing capacity has(48 more words not shown)
The statement that human food-producing(18 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(11 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- CIt is an(9 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(12 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Food production has grown faster than the population. That initially sounds like good news for anyone worried, as Malthus was, that there wouldn't be enough food.
Could there still be a problem? Perhaps the food supply consists mostly of corn and rice rather than a varied diet. That would raise a question about quality even with enough calories. But the author raises a different concern: agricultural advances can reduce biological diversity. Increasing production might come at the expense of forests or other parts of the natural environment.
What we’re looking for
The argument says this loss will eventually erode food-producing capacity, so Malthus's prediction will likely come true after all. I'd still want to know whether the loss is severe enough to produce the predicted shortages. For this question, however, we need the role of the opening fact. My first description would be a fact that seems to count against Malthus, even though the author ultimately predicts that he will be right. Keep that initial tension in mind when reading the choices.
Working the answers
- A
The author accepts the reported growth in food-producing capacity. The argument does not offer reasons for thinking the opening statement is false now. It argues that future conditions will be different.
- B
This is tempting because the opening fact does initially suggest that Malthus got things wrong. But look at the conclusion B attributes to the argument: a well-known view is misguided. The actual conclusion is that Malthus's prediction will likely be proven correct in the future. B captures the opening challenge while misidentifying where the overall argument ends up.
- C
The observation says food-producing capacity has outpaced population, which initially runs against Malthus's prediction. The author uses the anticipated consequences of lost biodiversity to explain why the prediction may nevertheless come true. The observation itself isn't offered as support for Malthus's position.
- DCorrect
This gives a more complete description of how the author handles the initial fact. Food-producing capacity has so far grown faster than population, but the loss of biodiversity is offered as a reason that favorable pattern will change. The author isn't changing what happened in the past; the author expects the pattern not to continue into the future.
- E
The opening statement isn't presented as a conjecture based on inadequate evidence. It is accepted, and the argument then considers a development that could change the situation. E invents an evidentiary criticism the author doesn't make.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.