#18 - Contrary to Malthus’s arguments, human food-producing

[ashpine17]

Hello, I am so confused. So at first I thought the first statement supported M's prediction because it sets off a causal chain that will ultimately lead to a food deficit. The food production going up will affect biodiversity and that wil in turn cause food production to go down which will support M. However, the premise for the conclusion (the last bit that says food production will go down) seems to be NOT the first sentence.

[ashpine17]

basically i thought the first sentence statement would provide indirect support

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi!

in Method AP questions we want to fully see the flow of the argument. The first sentence is the one we want to characterize.

The sentence isn't given a justification. They don't try to prove to us that human-producing food capacity has increased rapidly. The next few sentences don't explain that sentence. The next sentence actually starts with yet which points to us that the author is pivoting.

The argument flows, M is wrong --> but things are changing that will make him eventually correct.

Hope that helps

[sxzhao]

Piling on choice C struggle here:

Multhus' position: population increase will result in lack of food. We're doomed.
Observed phenonmenon: food production increases mroe than population, no lack of food, we're not doomed.

At a first glance, Multhus' positin seemed to be undermined. But this observation ACTUALLY supports Malthus' position if we compelte the chain of events: food production -> hurt biodiversity -> erode food production (implicitly -> lack of food. We're doomed".

Wonder what the problem is with my understanding here? Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi sxzhao!

For this question, we're asked about the function of the statement "that human food-producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human population." That statement occurs in the first sentence. At an initial glance, it might look like this stimulus is challenging Malthus. However, the next sentence starts with "yet"--it introduces a contrast with what came before. In short, the stimulus is actually saying that Malthus will be proven right notwithstanding the claim that human food-producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human population. Indeed, the third sentence is clear that "Malthus's prediction ... will likely be proven correct in the future." So that mentioned claim that the question asks about isn't in support of Malthus. To the contrary, it's something that looks like an attempt to challenge him.