Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 7

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that there might be enough food despite limitations, so it would cut against the argument.

Incorrect. The premise in the argument talks about a limit on the total food production, so splitting that into subsets doesn't do anything to the argument.

Incorrect. First, the Expert's argument relies on the population eventually outpacing food production, so the population stabilizing runs counter to that argument. Second, just because it has recently remained stable doesn't speak to what will happen in the future, so this answer doesn't really guarantee much on the timescale of the argument.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about widespread food shortages, so what has happened periodically in certain regions doesn't establish enough to help the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
While food production has outstripped population growth, there's a limit to how much food the planet can allow to grow, so eventually there will be widespread famine.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument makes a prediction about the future—eventually, there will be widespread food shortages. The argument does establish that, at some point, the amount of food we're able to grow will reach a limit, thus no longer growing. However, it doesn't establish that the other half of the problem will continue along its current path—that the population will continue to grow. If the population stops growing, then the food limitations are no longer an issue. So any information that supports continued population growth will strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that, at the point where food production has maxed out, the population will grow at least somewhat, thus increasing the likelihood that the amount of food needed by this larger population will be larger than food production. That will increase the likelihood of widespread food shortages, strengthening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
This argument has a very long timeline—it talks about what is "inevitable" at some point in the future. That's based on current trends. However, as we know, making predictions about the future based on current trends is flawed—things could change. When an argument is predicting the future based on the present, information that continues current trends will strengthen the argument, while answers that say things could change in the future away from the current trend will weaken it.