Q18 - Contrary to Malthus's arguments, human

[ReadingNation]

For those of you who aced this question or felt confident in selecting the right answer choice, how did you get around 18 C) ?

I originally picked C) though when I was reviewing it I can see why D) was correct ... However, I still don't completley understand why C) is incorrect ...

For me, the statement about "human food-producing ... " either helped to support Malthus's position (or at least part of it) or as C) suggests, the author meant to suggest that the aforementioned statement helped to support Malthus's position because it seemed to intereact with the statement "Yet, agricultural ... " in a way that tiggered the author's conclusion ... this in spite of the fact taht the 1st sentence clearly states that "human food-producing ... " clashes with (parts of) Malthus's argument ...

Would C) have been correct if it had stated "It is an observation that the argument suggest actually supports part of Malthus's position" ?

[dan]

This is a tough question -- answer (C) is very attractive. If we examine Malthus' argument, we know he believes two things:

(1) Human food-producing capacity has NOT increased more rapidly than human population. (This view is the opposite of what the author believes.)

(2) Insufficient food will doom humanity to war, pestilence, and famine.

So, Malthus' position is that food-producing capacity has not kept up with population growth, and thus we are doomed to war, pestilence, and famine.

The author's view is that food production HAS increased more rapidly than population, and for this reason we will see a lack of biodiversity and eventually a lack of ability to produce food (leading to war, pestilence, and famine).

Malthus and the author get to the same place, but from two different starting points.

Think of it this way:

Malthus' position: X, so we'll eventually get Y.
Author's position: No, Malthus is wrong. The opposite of X is true, which means we'll eventually get Y.

In this case, "the opposite of X" is the part in question. Does the author suggest that the opposite of X supports Malthus' position that X will lead to Y? No! The author suggests that the opposite of X is a different reason for believing that Y will occur.

(A) is relatively easy to eliminate since the statement in question is a fact, not a hypothesis. And, the argument is definitely not saying it's false.

(B) is tempting, but note that the conclusion is not that Mathus's view is misguided. While the argument does suggest that Malthus' argument is wrong (which is slightly different than misguided, but we can live with that) the conclusion is that we'll get to Mathus' predicted future, but not the way he thinks.

(C) is discussed above -- the statement in question is used to show that Malthus' argument is flawed (even though we'll get to the final part a different way).

(D) is correct. The final clause of the argument states that a lack of biodiversity will erode agricultural production capacity's outpacing of human population.

(E) is similar to (A). The statement in question is not a hypothesis; it's a fact.

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you help me to better understand why C is wrong but D is correct?

Initially, I chose C because I was considering Malthus' position to be the outcome (prediction) that he made. However, I understand now that his position is inclusive of his overall argument.

I still don't feel comfortable with the language in choice D, specifically regarding "will eventually change." Here's how I'm understanding it now: the agricultural advances are compromising biological diversity. I'm thinking that it's the phrase "insufficient food" that indicates the "change."

Is this correct?

[noah]

Initially, I chose C because I was considering Malthus' position to be the outcome (prediction) that he made. However, I understand now that his position is inclusive of his overall argument.

I still don't feel comfortable with the language in choice D, specifically regarding "will eventually change." Here's how I'm understanding it now: the agricultural advances are compromising biological diversity. I'm thinking that it's the phrase "insufficient food" that indicates the "change."

Is this correct?

Sounds like you see why (C) is wrong. For (D), the future event (change) that it refers to happening is in the final clause "a lack of biodiversity will eventually erode our capacity to produce food."

Does that make sense?

[skapur777]

Confused by this as well.

I also thought Malthus's (what kind of name is Malthus??) position was his prediction that insufficient food will doom humanity. And so, he mentions the first line but it seems to me that the human capacity to grow food more rapidly than human population actually supports his position (which I thought was his prediction). So even if a premise is wrong, his overall position is still supported by this seemingly opposing premise as well.

Am I misunderstanding what "position" means?

[noah]

I think Dan put it quite well above.

If we examine Malthus' argument, we know he believes two things:

(1) Human food-producing capacity has NOT increased more rapidly than human population. (This view is the opposite of what the author believes.)

(2) Insufficient food will doom humanity to war, pestilence, and famine.

To be clear, Malthus doesn't state the first line, the argument's author does. The author disagrees with Malthus' argument, however, as Dan noted, not with his prediction, but with the reasoning for that prediction. So, you're right - according to the author, the premise is wrong, but the overall prediction is right.

Analogously: Tim predicts Lucy will marry me. He says this because I'm rich and Lucy loves to marry rich people. But, in fact, I'm quite poor, and Lucy will marry me because she'll take pity on me.

Same end prediction, different path.

[skapur777]

That's why I'm confused.

The position Malthus takes is that insufficient food will doom humanity to famine.

The first line is contrary to Malthus argument by saying that human food-producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human population. So this goes against what Malthus seemingly said, which was that human food capacity will not increase more rapidly than human population.

Oh, wait a second, does Malthus's position include the premise "Human food capacity will not keep up with human population growth" or is it just the conclusion that "humanity will be doomed to famine"? If it's just the conclusion, then I don't see how the line in question doesn't support Malthus's position.

If it does include the premise, then yeah, it doesn't support the entire premise-conclusion relationship of Malthus's position, but just gives another reason why his conclusion could be reached.

[noah]

does Malthus's position include the premise "Human food capacity will not keep up with human population growth"

Yes.

Tell me if it's not clear now.

[eunjung.shin]

Initially, I chose C because I was considering Malthus' position to be the outcome (prediction) that he made. However, I understand now that his position is inclusive of his overall argument.

I still don't feel comfortable with the language in choice D, specifically regarding "will eventually change." Here's how I'm understanding it now: the agricultural advances are compromising biological diversity. I'm thinking that it's the phrase "insufficient food" that indicates the "change."

Is this correct?

Sounds like you see why (C) is wrong. For (D), the future event (change) that it refers to happening is in the final clause "a lack of biodiversity will eventually erode our capacity to produce food."

Does that make sense?

I get the argument since dan explained so well, but I am still not sure what D is saying..can someone help?

Thanks

[noah]

I get the argument since dan explained so well, but I am still not sure what D is saying..can someone help?

Thanks

I went back and edited his explanation to talk more about the wrong answers. Take a look.

In short, (D) is saying that the statement about food production capacity moving faster than population growth will change (i.e. stop). We learn that in the last clause.

What is tricky is that this answer doesn't refer to the statement in terms of it's role vis-a-vis the conclusion.

Tough one - tell me if you're still confused, and what about specifically.

[tzyc]

What does "Yet, agricultural advances often compromise biological diversity" part play in the argument?
Thank you.

[noah]

What does "Yet, agricultural advances often compromise biological diversity" part play in the argument?
Thank you.

It's a premise of the author's argument to show that Mathus' prediction will probably be proven correct (for a different reason than Mathus' thought of).

[aradunakhor]

Can someone explain why 'Malthus's position' in C necessarily refers to his argument (ie premise + conclusion), and not just the conclusion that insufficient food will doom humanity to war, pestilence, and famine?

In most use cases I thought a person's 'positions' would refer only to their final judgement on a particular matter, so for example a politician's position on abortion is either in support or against it, and nothing else (not how they came about their views).

Maybe the dictionary correct definition of 'position' refers to both the premise->conclusion, but then that seems like a poorly designed question since it depends crucially on knowing a somewhat arbitrary/obscure language feature (judging by the other people who got tripped up).

[noah]

Can someone explain why 'Malthus's position' in C necessarily refers to his argument (ie premise + conclusion), and not just the conclusion that insufficient food will doom humanity to war, pestilence, and famine?

In most use cases I thought a person's 'positions' would refer only to their final judgement on a particular matter, so for example a politician's position on abortion is either in support or against it, and nothing else (not how they came about their views).

Maybe the dictionary correct definition of 'position' refers to both the premise->conclusion, but then that seems like a poorly designed question since it depends crucially on knowing a somewhat arbitrary/obscure language feature (judging by the other people who got tripped up).

Great question. I'm not sure I have an equally great answer!

From the first sentence--"Contrary to Mathus's arguments..."--we learn that the statement in question is contrary to what Malthus is arguing. So, the easiest way to characterize the statement in question is that it's contrary to M's arguments. We definitely could (and should) refine that a bit: it's contrary to the argument but does lead to the same final prediction. With that in mind, it's hard to simply say that the observation support's M's position. In short, the role of the statement is either more simple--contrary to--or more complex--supports part of what M says in a convoluted way. (C) doesn't hit either option.

The other answer to your question is that we see a reference to M's arguments (first sentence), so there's no inherent reason to use a narrow interpretation of "position" when the stimulus introduces the entirety of M's argument as the general topic.

I wish I could be more definitive here, but I think this particular issue with this question is not something we need to worry about showing up on the next LSAT. It's pretty specific.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great responses Noah! That cleared up a bunch.

I just had a quick question if you get the chance. If I understand what you're saying, (D) is basically saying that human food producing capacity will eventually not increase more rapidly than human population. But the final sentence just says that the lack of biodiversity will "eventually erode our capacity to produce food". How do we know then that (D) is true? After all, the lack of biodiversity could erode our capacity to produce food, but if the human population goes down at a quick rate, wouldn't it still be the case that our food producing capacity is increasing more rapidly than human population? In that case, you would not be able to say that the situation will eventually change.

I guess what bothers me is that the first sentence talks about human food capacity COMPARED to population, while the final sentence just talks about food capacity WITHOUT a comparison to population. That sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. It didn't help that there was an attractive wrong answer in (C) due to the ambiguous usage of the word "position."

Am I missing something here?

THanks again!!

[noah]

I got this question wrong, but changed it on blind review and I think I understand it now. If someone can let me know if my write-up here is correct would be awesome.
--

Humanity is likely doomed, as Malthus predicts, but because of an eventual lack of biological diversity.

Malthus ostensibly thinks humanity is likely doomed because food-producing capacity hasn't increased relative to population. This is the opposite of the author's reasoning. Both think there are DIFFERENT facts to lead to the same general conclusion-- that humanity is likely doomed.

I see two problems with C, one primary and one secondary:

1) If it were there just as an "observation that actually supports Malthus's conclusion," it doesn't really add much to the argument. While this fact may support Malthus's final conclusion (humanity is doomed), it DOES NOT support his "position" (which is broader and encompasses WHY humanity is likely doomed).

2) The word "observation" is a small red flag for me, but not enough to necessarily disqualify the answer.

Examining D, it's definitely true. The first sentence is a general fact that the offer offers reason to believe will eventually change. And it DOES play a role like that in the argument -- the author presents the fact ("it is a general fact"), and says that this can't continue forever, thus leading humanity to be likely doomed ("that the offer provides reason to believe will eventually change").

D isn't perfect, I think a better answer choice would be "It is a fact that the author suggests supports his prediction," but it's the best we have.

A can be eliminated because it's not an hypothesis; and the author doesn't believe it's false. "well-known view" is an immediate red-flag for B, since there's no evidence of that in the stimulus. E is also out of scope and not true.

looks good!

[noah]

Thanks for the great responses Noah! That cleared up a bunch.

I just had a quick question if you get the chance. If I understand what you're saying, (D) is basically saying that human food producing capacity will eventually not increase more rapidly than human population. But the final sentence just says that the lack of biodiversity will "eventually erode our capacity to produce food". How do we know then that (D) is true? After all, the lack of biodiversity could erode our capacity to produce food, but if the human population goes down at a quick rate, wouldn't it still be the case that our food producing capacity is increasing more rapidly than human population? In that case, you would not be able to say that the situation will eventually change.

I guess what bothers me is that the first sentence talks about human food capacity COMPARED to population, while the final sentence just talks about food capacity WITHOUT a comparison to population. That sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. It didn't help that there was an attractive wrong answer in (C) due to the ambiguous usage of the word "position."

Am I missing something here?

THanks again!!

Good question and close reading. However, I think that you overlooked the "insufficient food" bit in that third sentence. That clear it up?

[Mab6q]

Fun question!

[xzhao01]

This question drives me nuts because I really do believe you're at an advantage if you already know who Malthus is and what he argued (i.e. that humanity is doomed to insufficient supply specifically because food production would be slower than population growth). Otherwise it would have been really difficult to unpack what "Malthus' position" entails (as demonstrated in the discussion above).

[tommywallach]

Fair enough. I think the answer is still in there, but it's rougher if you don't know.

-t