PrepTest 131

Incorrect. It's not a hypothesis, it's a fact—it's something that the author states as truth, not something that needs to be proved. The author also argues that it will be false in the future as biodiversity decreases, not that it's presently false.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that Malthus's view is well-known. Second, the conclusion is that Malthus will eventually be proven correct, not that his view is misguided.

Incorrect. While the argument does eventually conclude that Malthus will be proven correctly, the present situation—there's enough food to feed everyone—doesn't support that. Rather, the future change to there being enough food to feed everyone because of the decreasing biodiversity supports that position.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Humans have kept up with food production, contrary to what Malthus said. But it's at the expense of biodiversity, which will eventually cut into our food production, so Malthus's prediction is likely correct.

Answer Anticipation:
Wow, is this a convoluted argument! Let's work through it to see if we can get a sense for the role of the statement in question—but it's not easy!

The argument starts with a point/counterpoint. The author tells us that Malthus made an argument, but that a fact runs contrary to it—and that fact is the statement in question. So, as of now, the statement in question is a fact that undermines someone's argument.

The author then pivots ("Yet") to another trend that connects to the statement in question (both talk about agricultural advances/food-producing capacity), but it's unclear what direction it's going with this as of now, other than it's a pivot.

It then heads into a conclusion—that Malthus will ultimately be proven correct—which is interesting because the argument started by highlighting a fact (the statement in question) that ran counter to Malthus's argument. So things have changed—the author believes now Malthus is wrong, but he'll eventually be right. Why?

The last statement explains what's going to change. Biodiversity will eventually erode humanity's food-producing capacity. How does that play into the argument? Well, the statement in question is about food-producing capacity, and the following statement that pivots from that is about biodiversity. So it's time to revisit those statements in light of this new information!

The statement in question is that humans are making enough food to feed the population. However, the advances that have allowed this to happen are decreasing biodiversity and, according to the last statement, that lack of biodiversity will eventually lower ("erode") our ability to make food. So while we're currently making enough food and thus Malthus's argument isn't holding, eventually that will lead to us not making enough food, proving Malthus right.

So the statement in question is a fact that currently undercuts Malthus's argument, but it'll change in the future and thus prove Malthus correct. Quite a crazy ride to get here, but let's dig into the answers to find the correct one!

Answer Explanation:
It is established as a general fact—it's a premise that no support is offered for. And because decreasing biodiversity will erode the ability of humanity to make food, there's reason to believe that human food-producing capacity will eventually not be able to keep pace with population, the argument does offer a reason to believe that this fact will change. This is the correct answer to this convoluted question!

Key Takeaway:
This argument is unbelievably convoluted, and the structure is hard to fully understand. However, the question was asking about that structure, so it was important to dig in and work through it. Use the structural indicator words and overlapping concepts to track the logic through the argument and you'll be able to have a solid anticipation heading into the answers.

Incorrect. First, it's not a hypothesis. Second, the author believes it to be true—she just believes that it will change in the future.