Kim: The rapidly growing world

Answer choices

1. A

   No Support from Person 22% picked this

   Efforts should be taken to slow the rate of human population growth and to increase the amount of

   There is only weak support that Kim agrees to both of these measures. It seems more likely that she would agree to trying to reduce human population growth so that we don't need to increase the amount of land committed to agriculture, since that threatens our natural resources. But there is definitely no support for this from Hampton, who seems un-worried about our capacity to handle population growth.

   2%
2. B

   Correct63% picked this

   Continued research into more-efficient agricultural practices and innovative biotechnology aimed at producing more food on less

   Why this is right

   This is an implication of the fact that both people seem to agree with some version of Kim's first sentence: - the world's population is growing - we'll need more food (either by allocating more land or having technological breakthroughs that make food production more efficient) How do we know that these two would find "producing more food on less land" to be beneficial? Well, Kim is worried that our natural resources are threatened otherwise. Hampton refers to the promise of technology, which means the optimistic hope.

   Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   63%
3. C

   Trap13% picked this

   Agricultural and wilderness areas need to be protected from urban encroachment by preparing urban areas

   No Support from Person 2 Too Strong: need This is a very strong claim which acts like both people would say that we must prepare urban areas for greater population density, so that we can protect agricultural and wilderness from urban encroachment. That's too strong/specific for Kim, who would otherwise probably go along with this. But it's really too far afield from Hampton. He never discusses urban encroachment at all. He only is talking about food supply.

   13%
4. D

   No Support from Person 220% picked this

   In the next half century, human population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats

   It's pretty safe to sign off on Kim believing this, but Hampton doesn't discuss wildlife habitats or forests at all. He only discusses land currently devoted to agriculture. While his language allows for a "negligible increase" in the percentage of the world's land now devoted to agriculture, that's not much support for positively saying that population growth will erode habitats and will diminish forests.

   20%
5. E

   Trap2% picked this

   The human diet needs to be modified in the next half century because of the depletion of our

   No Support from Either Too Strong: needs They might both agree that "modifying the human diet in a way that requires less land for agriculture could be beneficial", but we can't support that either of them believes that the human diet needs to be modified. In particular, Hampton doesn't seem to believe this, since he thinks technology will save us and thus obviate any need for us to change our ways.

   2%