#24- Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural

[adlindsey]

I think this is the wrong question for #24 of this test. I have Agriculture economist: We can increase agriculture production without reducing biodiversity, but only if etc. Can this question be explained. Thanks.

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi Adlindsey!

Yes, you are correct. The #24 that was posted here was actually supposed to be in LR Section III. I have moved that other post to the correct place. Good catch. An instructor will respond to your question below.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Boy did you pick a good one, adlindsey! I'm surprised we haven't had more discussion on this one already.

One way to approach this is to build a diagram, but by bit. Here are my abbreviations:

Increased Ag Production = IAP
Biodiversity = B
Conventional Ag = CA
Sustain Economic Growth = SEG

The first claim can be dealt with as a multi-conditional, like this:

IAP

+ CA

B

The next claim makes SEG sufficient for IAP:

SEG IAP

The conclusion then links SEG to CA, but leaves out any connection to B:

SEG CA

To strengthen this link, I need to pull B back into the picture. To prove CA, I need both IAP AND B, but SEG only proves IAP. So, add in that SEG is sufficient for B, and we're there! Our prephrase, then, should be:

SEG B

(Sustained economic growth is sufficient for biodiversity, or put another way, don't grow the economy without also maintaining biodiversity)

The best match for us is answer B. That is the only answer that ties SEG to B, which is what we need in order to get all the way through the chain to getting away from conventional agriculture.

A lot of work to get there, and the potential to get lost and confused along the way, but at the end of the journey there is only one contender that could possibly be our credited response, and so it is worth the extra effort.

I hope that clears it up for you!