LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 18

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 18

December 2009

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:37

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT131 S2 Q18	+LR	Argument part +AP Net Effect +NetEff	A 5% 158 B 8% 159 C 47% 164 D 39% 166 E 2% 156	153 173 180	+Hardest	147.936 +SubsectionMedium

Contrary to Malthus’s arguments, human food-producing capacity has increased more rapidly than human population. Yet, agricultural advances often compromise biological diversity. Therefore, Malthus’s prediction that insufficient food will doom humanity to war, pestilence, and famine will likely be proven correct in the future, because a lack of biodiversity will eventually erode our capacity to produce food.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation

Although human food capacity has increased more than the human population, the author believes that Malthus’ prediction that insufficient food will doom humanity to war will likely be proven true. This is because agricultural advances will limit biological diversity and eventually undermine humanity’s capacity to produce food.

Identify Argument Part

The author concedes that this information is true, but acknowledges that it will likely change as a result of a lack of biodiversity.

It is a hypothesis the argument provides reasons for believing to be presently false.

The author does not believe this statement to be false. The author says that they agrees with it, but that it does not change the impending doom that awaits humanity.

It is a part of the evidence used in the argument to support the conclusion that a well-known view is misguided.

The author doesn't use the statement as evidence to show that a view is misguided. The author agrees with Malthus’ prediction.

It is an observation that the argument suggests actually supports Malthus’s position.

The observation contradicts Malthus's original argument, which is why the author acknowledges it upfront but eventually points to a future problem with biodiversity to suggest Malthus might be right in the long term.

It is a general fact that the argument offers reason to believe will eventually change.

The author acknowledges that food production has outpaced human growth *for now* but argues that humanity will likely war over food resources in the future. Thus, it is likely that this would change.

It is a hypothesis that, according to the argument, is accepted on the basis of inadequate evidence.

The author does not say anything about insufficient evidence. The author accepts this statement as fact and concludes that humans will still be plunged into doom despite it.

LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 18

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 18

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel