LSAT 131 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Contrary to Malthus’s arguments, human food-producing capacity

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Malthus will probably eventually be proven correct.

REASONING: Our agricultural advances often hurt biological diversity, and this will eventually erode our food production capacity.

ANALYSIS: Let’s break down the components in this argument:

Malthus’ claim: human population will grow faster than our ability to produce food.

Was Malthus right so far? No. Human food production capacity has grown faster than human population.

Will Malthus be right later? The author says yes: our expanded food production may destroy biodiversity, which will hurt food production.

So the statement that food production capacity has grown faster is a statement that appears to contradict Malthus, but which may not hold in the long run.

___________

1. The author thinks that it is presently true that food production has grown faster than population. They’re only worried that this might not remain true in the future.
2. The author is arguing that Malthus will eventually be right. The statement in question is evidence that Malthus is wrong. So it can’t help the author.
3. This is too strong. Malthus is saying the direct opposite of this statement! (He says: we won’t grow enough food to support our growing population.)
   This could have been right had it said “It is an observation the argument suggests is consistent with Malthus eventually being right.”
4. CORRECT. See the analysis above. The author admits that, currently, food production has outpaced population growth. But they think that eventually food production will be hurt by lack of biodiversity.
5. The author didn’t say this.
   Example of flaw: People believe food production has increased. But I looked at the stats, and it turns out they’re looking at a very small sample of production.