Expert: Some people claim that, since food production has thus far increased faster than population has, there is no ...

mkesh on April 15, 2020

D vs E

would it be possible to get an explanation as to why E? i was stuck between both d and e. thank you!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on April 15, 2020

Hi @mkesh,

Thanks for the question! First, let’s take a look at the argument itself. An expert is telling us that widespread food shortages are inevitable. What evidence is there for this? The fact that the planet’s resources allow for food to be produced at only a few times the current amount, and past that point, there’ll be no increase in production possible.

The question is asking us for the answer choice that most strengthens the expert’s reasoning. Let’s take a moment to prephrase. What would be something that helps the expert’s argument out? Well, clearly, if the food production got to the maximum food production point beyond which no further food was possible, but the population continued to increase past the point where maximum food production would support the population, then there would be widespread foot shortages.

Let’s take a look at (E). (E) tells us that after food production has hit its max level, the population will continue to grow at least briefly. This matches our prephrase. If the population continues to grow even when food production has reached its max level, then it strengthens the claim that widespread food shortages are inevitable.

(D), on the other hand, is incorrect. (D) tells us about past periodic regional food shortages which have occurred throughout history. But the argument has to do with future widespread food shortages, which are different, and so the past analysis is irrelevant to this one.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.