Today’s farmers plant only a

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact11% picked this

   In the past, crop diseases would often devastate food supplies throughout

   This conclusion is only about the sort of crop disease that would have had only minor impact on the food supply in the past. The author wasn't saying that in the past the food supply was never devastated. It's suggested that a disease that struck a large number of strains of crops could have done terrible damage. The author is focused only on how in the past a disease that only targeted a few strains wouldn't have been a systemic threat, and now that type of disease would be.

   11%
2. B

   Correct67% picked this

   Affected crops can quickly be replaced from seed banks that store many strains

   Why this is right

   This answer might not appeal to us much on a first pass, but it ends up being the best option we have for arguing that, "A crop disease that strikes a few strains of crops would not devastate the food supply today". If affected crops (i.e. ones that get the disease) can quickly be replaced from seed banks with other strains of those crops, then it doesn't sound like the food supply would be devastated. Temporarily strained, maybe. But if affected crops can be quickly replaced, it doesn't sound like much of an emergency. Let's say a corn farmer nowadays only plants strains L, M, N, O, and P, whereas back in the day a corn farmer would plant not only LMNOP but also strains X, Y, and Z. If a crop disease comes around and knocks out L, M, and N, this answer is saying that the corn farmer could quickly replace those affected crops, by using a seed bank that stores strains of X, Y, and Z. Historically, students have always hated the notion that, "if you're removing a diseased crop and then planting seeds of a new strain of that crop, don't you have to wait an entire growing season before that would do anything to solve your problem?" Maybe. It's possible that seed banks aren't just "seeds" but are more like germinated seeds in pots; in other words, a seed bank might be storing these strains at a point in the crop's life cycle that is closer to harvesting than if we were to just put a new seed in the ground. But if nothing else, we just have to accept that this answer, while a bit of a weak rebuttal, is still our strongest available rebuttal.

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

   67%
3. C

   Strengthens, if anything4% picked this

   Some of the less popular seed strains that were used in the past were more resistant to many diseases than

   The contrast between Past and Present that this answer provides is that many of the popular strains being used today are less resistant to diseases, which just augments the author's claim that a crop disease could devastate our crops.

   4%
4. D

   Mixed Impact1% picked this

   Humans today have more variety in their diets than in the past, but still rely heavily on cereal

   The fact that humans have more variety in their diets initially sounds like something that might help us argue, "Sure, a crop disease could decimate the strains of crops affected, but it wouldn't devastate the food supply, since humans have a wide variety in their diet so they would just eat other stuff instead." But the second half of this answer says that humans still rely heavily on certain crops like rice and wheat, so that part strengthens the author's claim that our food supply could be vulnerable to a narrow crop disease (were it to attack rice or wheat crops).

   1%
5. E

   Weak Impact16% picked this

   Today’s crops are much less vulnerable to damage from insects or encroachment by weeds than were crops of

   This is tempting because it tells us something about today's crops that makes them stronger than before, but it's not stronger in relation to crop disease. No matter how strong your corn crops are these days when it comes to pests and weeds, if the corn gets hit by a crop disease, it takes out that crop either way. And even if all your other crops are more plentiful then they were generations ago (because they are more resistant to pests and weeds), it doesn't change the fact that you no longer have any corn to harvest. Thus, there is now a shortage of corn in the food supply. In the correct answer, we're better able to argue that a corn farmer who loses her crop to disease would still be able to get corn into the food supply (reasonably soon).

   16%