Agricultural economist: We can increase

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would

   This has nothing to do with the choice the author is faced with: 1. abandon conventional but maintain biodiversity 2. maintain conventional but reduce biodiversity This is talking about an option that would reduce agricultural production and increase biodiversity. Since this choice has nothing to do with our current conversation, it's not helping the author to strengthen the decision she is making in our current conversation.

   1%
2. B

   Correct63% picked this

   Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a

   Why this is right

   We wanted to hear that "maintaining biodiversity is more important than is maintaining conventional agricultural techniques". This is basically the closest we're getting. The conclusion begins, "If we're choosing to sustain economic growth". We are told that doing so will require increasing agricultural production, and this answer is adding "we also shouldn't tolerate any loss of biodiversity". Now that we've established how crucial maintaining biodiversity is, the first sentence is saying, "Okay, we'll there's a way to increase production while maintaining biodiversity, but it would require abandoning conventional agriculture". This gets the author to her conclusion of, "Okay, then. If we're going to sustain growth, then we'll need to abandon conventional agriculture".

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   63%
3. C

   Adds Nothing9% picked this

   Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production

   This doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. The conclusion has a factual premise built in as a which-modifier. We already know that sustaining economic growth requires increasing agricultural production, so this answer seems to be just reiterating that same idea again.

   9%
4. D

   Opposite, if anything5% picked this

   Preserving biodiversity is no more important than increasing

   We want to hear that "preserving biodiversity is more important than maintaining conventional agricultural techniques" or that "we've got to maintain biodiversity". The author is making her decision based on the route that is required if we are trying to avoid reducing biodiversity, so the correct answer needs to establish that we are trying to avoid reducing biodiversity. This answer starts off by saying "Preserving biodiversity is no more important than ...", so we know this is moving in the wrong direction.

   5%
5. E

   If-Conclusion22% picked this

   Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we

   Since the idea we're trying to justify is "we should radically modify agricultural techniques", we would only want to see that on the right side of a conditional statement. Any time we see the idea we're trying to prove in the trigger (unless it's the negated version of that idea), we know it's automatically wrong. If we're trying to justify the conclusion, "Thus, Eric is a jerk", any answer that begins "If someone is a jerk" is automatically dead in the water. This answer says, "If radically modifying agricultural techniques wouldn't increase agricultural production, we shouldn't radically modify them". That doesn't match the move this argument is making from evidence to conclusion.

   22%