Q21 - Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: If enough food is going to be produced for the Earth's growing population, organic farming must not spread any further. Premises: Farming with artificial fertilizers allows more food to be grown on the same amount of land. If all farmers went organic, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a degree issue with this argument. We have evidence that every farmer shouldn't go organic. But that doesn't mean that we have to stop the spread of organic farming in its tracks.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
(A) No, our argument doesn't hinge on this being true. Even if farming with artificial fertilizers is a lot more damaging to the environment, we still might conclude that it's the better way, since feeding the growing population is what we're trying to achieve.

(B) Did our argument consider this possibility? No. And if this possibility is true, it blows up our argument because we no longer need to fear that slippery slope reasoning. That makes this the correct answer.

(C) Did our argument consider this possibility? No. But if true, does it mess up the argument? Not at all. What was true in the past doesn’t predict the future.

(D) Does our argument consider this possibility? It certainly seems to. When it concludes that we should stop the spread of organic farming, it seems to imply that either every farmer would go organic, or that enough would go organic to compromise food supply. Since this possibility is considered, it isn't overlooked. And anyway, if this possibility is true, it strengthens the argument instead of blowing it up. This answer is wrong on multiple counts.

(E) Does our argument hinge on this being true? Not quite. It's tempting, because the argument weighs feeding the population against environmental damage and concludes that it's ok to do damage in order to feed everyone. That, in turn, assumes that the damage done wouldn't pose more of a threat to the human population than the lack of food would. But do we need to go so far as to assume that there is nothing about the fertilizers that is detrimental to human health? No, that's going too far. We just need to assume that it doesn't land us in a worse situation than the lack of food would.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When the argument in the stimulus doesn't include a flaw with a name, chances are the right answer will be phrased either as an assumption (A and E) or an objection (B, C, and D). For assumption answer choices, ask yourself if the argument really hinges on that assumption being true. For objection answer choices, ask yourself 2 questions: Did argument actually overlook that objection, and, if the objection were true, would it mess up the argument.

#officialexplanation

[MeganL677]

Hi Laura,

Thanks for your excellent explanation. But I think I still don't quite understand what D is saying. I didn't even understand the sentence structure... Can you help more elaborate on this answer?

Appreciate your help in advance.

[XiaoranZ794]

Hi Laura,

Thanks for your excellent explanation. But I think I still don't quite understand what D is saying. I didn't even understand the sentence structure... Can you help more elaborate on this answer?

Appreciate your help in advance.

In my opinion, "a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming" refers to "unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population".

To put this choice into several sentences, it would be: if all farmers adopt the practise of organic farming, there will not be enough food for Earth's growing population. But the Farmer overlooks the possibility that if some (maybe most) of farmers adopt organic farming, it is already enough to bring about the disastrous result.

[logicalt870]

I am still confused as to why D is wrong. I understand why B is correct but I can also see D as the correct answer. If the consequence of food shortages would still occur regardless of whether or not the practice of organic farming spreads, then wouldn't that be a flaw in the argument? Since this scenario is completely overlooked.