PT152 S1 Q21 ExplanationFarmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: only slightly2% picked this

   It takes for granted that farming with artificial fertilizers is only slightly more damaging to the environment

   We can't comment on the degree to which inorganic farming is more damaging. The author just said "more damaging", so we have no grounds to think she's assuming "only slightly more". If we negated this assumption and said "inorganic farming is more than just slightly more damaging", it wouldn't be a big objection to her argument. Without knowing in what way it's damaging, we can't turn "it's significantly more damaging to the environment" into a relevant objection about whether inorganic farming would result in a diminution of our food production capabilities.

   2%
2. B

   Correct50% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that even if the practice of organic farming continues to spread, many farmers will

   Why this is right

   This is slyly speaking to the gap between "can't spread any further" in the conclusion and the "can't have ALL farmers practicing organic" from the evidence. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author, even if organic farming continues to spread, many farmers will choose not to go with organic farming"? Yes, because the author's argument about sufficient food production is relying on this contrapositive: all farms were organic ? not enough food Thus, she should be saying enough food ? don't let all farms be organic Instead, she said enough food ? don't let org farming spread So she's on the hook for assuming that if we let organic farming spread, then we'll get to a point of all farms being organic. And this answer presents an objection to that assumption. "No we won't -- we can let organic farming spread, and since many farmers will never adopt it, we won't get to the point of all farms being organic."

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

   50%
3. C

   No Impact6% picked this

   It fails to consider the possibility that, at some points in human history, enough food was produced to feed Earth’s population without

   Would it be an objection to say to the author, "Hey, author, at some points in human history, we produced enough food for Earth's population organically (w/o artificial fertilizers)"? No, because the author would just say, "Sure. But Earth has a growing population. It was possible back then for organic farming to feed us all, but not anymore with today's population size."

   6%
4. D

   Bad Objection29% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue even

   If all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming, the consequence that would follow is "unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population". Can we hurt the author's argument by saying, "Hey, author, even if some farmers don't adopt the practice of organic farming, we still might be unable to produce enough food"? No, because the author was never guaranteeing us that we can produce enough food, as long as some farmers avoid organic farming. The conclusion is saying, "if we don't stop organic farming, we won't produce enough food". It doesn't say, "if we do stop organic farming, we will produce enough food", which is the sort of conclusion that would be hurt by this answer choice's objection.

   29%
5. E

   Out of Scope: human health13% picked this

   It takes for granted that damage to the environment due to the continued use of artificial fertilizers would not

   The conclusion isn't a broad fuzzy sense of "should we / shouldn't we be engaging in organic farming". This conclusion is narrowly drawn to the topic of sufficient food supply. All we're analyzing is whether stopping organic farming where it is would be necessary to produce sufficient food for the world. Yes, there are complex tradeoffs in doing lots of inorganic farming (environmental damage and maybe, as this answer is saying, some form of harm to human health). But the author's conclusion isn't a holistic assessment. It's just about food supply.

   13%