Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in farming is harmful to local wildlife. ██ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ █████████
The argument concludes that organic farming reduces the amount of land available as habitat for wildlife, compared to non-organic farming. Why? Because organic farming requires more land to be used to produce the same amount of food, again compared to non-organic farming.
But wait—the premise about land use doesn't actually mention habitat loss. So the argument must assume that land used for (organic) farming is unavailable as habitat. The argument also has to assume that the impact of chemicals doesn't eliminate a much greater area of habitat around the land farmed. Otherwise, organic farming might still leave more habitat available.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████████
Chemical fertilizers and ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ █████████
Even if chemicals do pose a threat to wildlife, the argument stays intact; (A) isn't necessary to assume. The argument claims that regardless of the harms of chemicals, organic farming simply takes up more land that is then unavailable as habitat.
Wildlife living near █████ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ██████████
(B) is not necessary—even if wildlife would ingest chemicals near farms, the argument isn't damaged. We can't assume that all land where wildlife can ingest chemicals is unavailable as habitat, so we don't know if this even affects the comparison between organic and non-organic farms.
The only disadvantage ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████
The argument isn't about which method of farming is overall better, just which one leaves more habitat available for wildlife. Any non-habitat-related advantages or disadvantages are beyond the scope of the argument, and are thus not necessary to assume.
The same crops ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ███ █████
The argument compares organic and non-organic farmland based on the amount of land needed to produce the same quantity of food. Whether that quantity is made up of the exact same crops, or there are different crops grown, doesn't affect the strength of the argument.
Land cultivated by ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████ █ ███████ ███ █████████
(E) is necessary to assume, because without it, the argument falls apart. If this were false, and land used for organic farming was simultaneously wildlife habitat, then the conclusion would make no sense. No matter how much extra land was needed for organic farming, it would still all be habitat!
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic