LR Question 7 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Expert: Some people claim that, since food production…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: We will definitely suffer from widespread food shortages.
REASONING: There is a maximum amount of food production possible on Earth. Population is still increasing.
ANALYSIS: This argument hasn’t shown that population will increase high enough to outstrip food production. Currently, food production is increasing faster than population.
It’s true that food production will max out. But to show that there will be food shortages, we need to show that population will keep increasing.
I have a bit of doubt about answer B on this argument. That’s why I’ve made the answers longer. After thinking it over, I don’t think B supports the conclusion. For instance, in the real world we are using more than the max capacity of the oceans right now, yet we still seem to have room to grow the food supply. So using all the fish doesn’t really support the conclusion that food crises are inevitable. All it does is show that one potential avenue for growth of the food supply is unavailable. But there may be others.
Answer E does a better job by showing what will happen when food supply actually does max out.
Also, remember, the conclusion is not about whether we will use all the food. It’s about whether we’ll have food crises once we hit max food capacity. It’s possible we’ll reach our maximum production of food yet manage population in such a way that avoids famine and crisis.
___________
- This weakens the argument, slightly. The argument would be even stronger if food resources weren’t renewable.
- This sounds tempting, but it’s not useful. Ocean food resources are already included in total food production. Our concern is whether total food resources will be fully utilized, not whether one part of food resources will be fully utilized.
In other words, we might eat all the fish but still have plenty of wheat left to eat, and so we won’t have food shortages.
Also, the argument is not necessarily talking about utilization at a given point in time. Instead, the author is asking if food resources can be grown in order to permit more use. Fully using fish, at given point, doesn’t tell us whether growth of the food supply has become impossible. It likewise doesn’t tell us that the population of humans that needs to be fed will grow past the available food supply. E does that directly, which is why it’s a better answer.
(Note: If E wasn’t here, I would have picked B. I can see why it’s not right, but there are still some reasons for choosing it – which is unusual.) - This weakens the argument. If population stops growing, we are less likely to have food shortages.
- The argument is talking about widespread food shortages. Local food shortages are not the same.
- CORRECT. This shows that population may continue to grow past carrying capacity. We won’t stop producing more people just because we stop producing more food.
This doesn’t strengthen the argument much. It’s possible we wouldn’t have famines even if population continued increasing briefly. Maybe we will have a food surplus and still have room for brief growth. But we only need to support the argument. We don’t need to decisively prove it correct.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Wow, that hidden perspective is a revelation–thank you thank you!
BUT…
In E, who is to say that when food production has maxed out, it matches the population?
Maybe now we produce 10x more food than we need
when it maxes out, we produce 5x more food, and then a bit later since food is stable but pop grows, it becomes 4x more food, but most food is still underutilized, and no crisis…It suggests the possibility of a crisis on the basis of other similar cases, but so do B and D
Yeah, I guess I don’t see the crisis
I really still think they got this one wrong–I am not convinced
(B) could still be equal to or better than (E) as a strengthener.
Negate (B), and it becomes impossible to have shortages. (If you can always still get more fish, you can always still feed more people.)
Negate (E), and it becomes just as impossible not to have shortages. (If there are no extra people to feed, no more food is necessary.)
Why privilege demand over supply?
Without negating:
B says it is possible for all the food to be eaten. It is possible that there will not be more food coming once it’s all eaten. Therefore there can be shortages.
E says it’s possible for some eaters to go hungry. It is possible that there will be more eaters who hunger once all the food is eaten. Therefore there can be shortages.
(Don’t say E actually makes it so while B only makes it possible to be so. Food production can be at max and 80% of it goes to waste. Then population continues to grow, so only 60% goes to waste, but still no shortage.)
If you negate B, you get “the ocean’s are fully utilized, except for one fish”. That doesn’t leave much slack. Further, the argument already implies that ALL food resources will be fully utilized (not just oceans). Food production will max out, and the population will grow. So the argument was already assuming B would happen.
The big way the argument could be wrong is if we stop growing in time to live within our means. There’s no obvious reason why we have to overshoot food production. But E tells us we inevitably will keep growing even when food production maxes.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
I don’t agree that B is not useful.
The fact that one avenue of supply food will be fully maxed out due to demand strengthens the premise and makes it more likely that overall food shortages will occur. It doesn’t guarantee it, far from it, but it certainly seems more likely than had we not known that fact.
I believe it is a matter of degree. If they also told us that land based food resources will be maxed out too, it’ll be even better. And if they also add that we can’t recycle food resources it’ll be EVEN stronger.
The possibilities you mention could happen. Maybe we’ll find a new strand of corn that can feed the planet. But we’re working with very little information, and in the vacuum we’re presented with, knowing one source of food is off the table only helps.
It hurts to admit it, but I think the only way to eliminate this is to compare this with the credited answer and pick the stronger one….. what a waste of time. I hope I don’t see crap like this on my test….
There’s a hidden perspective you’re supposed to take on strengthen questions. Take the answers at their weakest. Answer B allows for a range of possibilities. In many of them, maxing fish usage has no impact on food shortages. For instance, if population is stable when fish usage maxes, and land production is still growing massively.
Whereas increasing population once food has maxed will *certainly* increase the odds of shortage. Mathematically, it has to. With the same amount of food and more people, we’re definitely closer to shortages. (whether or not they are actually close).
If you adopt the perspective of taking strengthen/weaken answers at their least useful, it solves a lot of dilemmas. It’s never once led me astray.
“There’s a hidden perspective you’re supposed to take on strengthen questions. Take the answers at their weakest.”
This is gold.