Q7 - Expert: Some people claim that, since food production

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
It is only possible to increase current food production by a few times the current amount. Therefore, widespread starvation will happen.

Answer Anticipation:
Do we need more food? A big assumption in this argument is that we'll need to increase food supply to support a larger population. If the population stabilizes or decreases, then we should be good.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope/if anything, opposite. If anything, this answer states that the food situation might not be as bad as thought since the food is renewable. That said, it is actually out of scope, as the renewability doesn't matter as much as the throughput (if more food is coming next year, that doesn't help people starving now).

(B) Premise booster. The argument speaks to total food production capacity, which includes ocean-based food. This answer is already included in the argument. Also, if anything, lacking the ability to get all the food possible from the ocean would increase the odds of starvation, not the ability to scrape the ocean floor for all food (think Lil' Lisa Slurry, for all you Simpsons fans).

(C) If anything, opposite. The argument is helped by the population growing past the point where food production can sustain it, so this answer cuts in the opposite direction. That said, since it only discusses a current trend, it doesn't definitively weaken the conclusion that's about "inevitable" food shortages at some point in the future.

(D) Out of scope. The conclusion is about the future, and it's about widespread food shortages. This answer is about the past, and it's about regional food shortages.

(E) Bingo. If population keeps growing past the maximum food production point, starvation is inevitable.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When an author concludes something is a problem, make sure he's established why it's a problem. In this argument, there's no information why food production to drastically increase is necessary. To strengthen this type of flaw, find an answer that states why it's a problem; weaken it by showing why it's not a concern.

#officialexplanation

[MingL143]

Do you call this argument is "comparative argument"? The rate of food production vs population growth?
The assumption here in this argument: The ration between these two rates remain the same in future. To strength it is rule out the objection that "the ration will not remain the same" or " a new way of creating food without depleting earth natural resources might be invented then", right?

[ohthatpatrick]

I would not call this Comparative. I tend to save that label for when the conclusion is comparative (So plan X is better than plan Y), or when the evidence consists of comparing two groups or two things:
because it was true in the past, it'll be true in the future
because it was true in this situation, it'll be true in this partially similar situation
because Charlie did it, Betty should do it

The sly underlying assumption here is that population will continue to increase, which is almost a "because it was true in the past, it'll be true in the future".

But really the underlying archetype of this argument, which they've used multiple times, is that an author assumes that because a supply is finite, it will not be enough.

And the way to break that logic is say, "A finite supply might still be adequate for a given level of demand."

Check out the first LR question on test 58:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t8739.html

I think I see what you're trying to express with "assuming the rates of population increase and food production increase will stay the same". However, the author is explicitly saying that food production WILL NOT continue increasing. Thus, because he assumes that population WILL continue increasing, he expects that we'll hit a point of insufficient supply. But he never explicitly established that population will continue increasing.