Contrary to Malthus's arguments

Answer choices

1. A

   Not a Hypothesis Not Refuted4% picked this

   It is a hypothesis the argument provides reasons for believing to

   A hypothesis is a statement that attempts to explain a given phenomenon. The first statement isn't trying to explain any phenomenon. Also, the argument accepts it as true; it doesn't try to prove it false.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   It is a part of the evidence used in the argument to support the conclusion that a

   There is no conclusion present that a well-known view is misguided. We have no idea whether Malthus's view is well-known, and the author isn't arguing that it's a misguided view, since she is arguing that his prediction will probably be proven correct.

   8%
3. C

   Too Strong: "supports"41% picked this

   It is an observation that the argument suggests actually supports

   This answer is very close to being fine. The first claim certainly qualifies as an observation. Since we initially called it a Counterpoint to Malthus's argument, it might not sound tempting to say that this first claim actually supports Malthus's position. However, Malthus's position (i.e. prediction) is that insufficient food will doom humanity. The fact that food-production has outpaced population growth goes against that. But I can see being tempted by this answer, because the author is suggesting that the agricultural advances may temporarily allow food production to outpace population growth, but because those advances harm biodiversity, they could ultimately erode our ability to produce food, thus supporting Malthus's prediction that we will have insufficient food. But that first claim itself doesn't support Malthus's position. It's only in relation to what else agricultural advances often do that we find support for Malthus's position. So it's not accurate to say this first claim actually supports Malthus's position.

   41%
4. D

   Correct45% picked this

   It is a general fact that the argument offers reason to believe

   Why this is right

   It is a general fact. The argument does offer a reason to believe it will eventually change. Eventually, we won't be able to say that "food production has outpaced population growth" because our agricultural advances could very well compromise biodiversity, which would diminish our food production capabilities.

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

   45%
5. E

   Trap1% picked this

   It is a hypothesis that, according to the argument, is accepted on the basis

   Not a Hypothesis Out of Scope: "inadequate evidence" As stated for choice (A), this is a fact not a hypothesis. Moreover, there's no discussion of inadequate evidence for this fact. Our author accepts this fact.

   1%