Q11 - Since 1945 pesticide use

[agersh144]

I got this question right by POE, I knew the other four answer did not resolve the paradox, however, I still don't quite understand why the correct answer does resolve the paradox I can only vaguely grasp generically that the cessation of crop rotation increased the ability of insects to have a stable food supply and thus increased their chances to become resistant and thus farmers in turn applied more pesticide to counteract the increased pestilence...is this essentially what is going on?

Thanks in advance!

[maryadkins]

the cessation of crop rotation increased the ability of insects to have a stable food supply and thus increased their chances to become resistant and thus farmers in turn applied more pesticide to counteract the increased pestilence

Right on!

(B) explains both why pesticide use went up and why crop loss also increased. One, the pesticides weren't effective due to growing resistance--which explains how the insect damage got out of control. Exacerbating this problem was that the old way of dealing with crop loss from insects was no longer an option. Together these facts explain why pesticide use went up even as crop damage was, as well.

And POE is definitely the way to go on this question:

(A) doesn't at all address the increased crop loss issue.

(C) if pesticides over the recent past have been "equally effective" as pesticides in the far past, why has crop loss increased?

(D) Crop prices? Irrelevant.

(E) Boycotting pesticides does not explain their more frequent use.

[agersh144]

Great explanation, thanks Mary!