For those of us who wish to preserve the planet’s diversity of species, high-tech, chemically assisted agriculture is an environmentalist’s best friend. That’s right. Soaring growth in human population threatens to destroy most of the world’s remaining rainforests, wetlands, and mountain ecosystems, drastically reducing species diversity. Despite advances in chemical-free farming techniques, overreliance on these practices will result in the plowing down of forests to feed a global population that is estimated to reach 9.6 billion people by 2050. Environmentalists must face the fact that unless high-yield crop varieties, pesticides, and fertilizers are widely used in developing nations, the world’s food supply will be outstripped by spiraling demand. This will mean more forests falling under the plow. I couldn’t agree more that it’s crucial to step up agricultural productivity to feed a spiraling global population. My quarrel is with how to intensify agriculture, not whether it should be intensified. The paramount concern must be to increase crop yields in environmentally sensitive ways that protect human health and the soil and water that are agriculture’s very foundation. Heavy use of agrochemicals can bring high yields in the short run, but the cumulative damages may be considerable. Those of us whose research demonstrates that resource-conserving farming practices can be just as productive as the chemical-intensive kind contend that the goal should be efficient use of chemicals, not wide use.
The author of Passage 2 would most likely respond to the statement in the fifth sentence of Passage 1 ('Environmentalists must face the fact that unless high-yield crop varieties, pesticides, and fertilizers are widely used in developing nations, the world's food supply will be outstripped by spiraling demand') by arguing that:
- A. industrialized nations pose a greater threat to the environment than do developing nations
- B. many fertilizers are organic substances that produce no ill effects in humans
- C. agricultural chemicals can be used on a small scale and still significantly improve crop yields
- D. the use of pesticides is unnecessary if high-yield crop varieties are adopted
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C aligns with the idea that improving crop yields can be achieved through targeted use of agricultural chemicals, suggesting a balanced approach rather than widespread reliance. This reflects the author's likely advocacy for sustainable practices that enhance productivity without overwhelming environmental concerns. Option A diverts the focus to industrialized nations, which may not directly address the statement's emphasis on developing nations' agricultural needs. Option B incorrectly implies that all fertilizers are harmless, overlooking potential environmental impacts. Option D dismisses the potential benefits of pesticides entirely, which may not align with the author's nuanced view on agricultural practices.
Option C aligns with the idea that improving crop yields can be achieved through targeted use of agricultural chemicals, suggesting a balanced approach rather than widespread reliance. This reflects the author's likely advocacy for sustainable practices that enhance productivity without overwhelming environmental concerns. Option A diverts the focus to industrialized nations, which may not directly address the statement's emphasis on developing nations' agricultural needs. Option B incorrectly implies that all fertilizers are harmless, overlooking potential environmental impacts. Option D dismisses the potential benefits of pesticides entirely, which may not align with the author's nuanced view on agricultural practices.
Other Related Questions
Which word best completes the sentence?
- A. malleable
- B. obscure
- C. ominous
- D. vigorous
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
In this context, "malleable" refers to something that can be easily shaped or influenced, making it the most fitting choice for a sentence discussing adaptability or flexibility. Option B, "obscure," implies something that is not well-known or hard to understand, which does not align with the intended meaning. Option C, "ominous," suggests a sense of foreboding or threat, which is unrelated to the idea of adaptability. Option D, "vigorous," conveys strength or energy but lacks the nuance of flexibility that "malleable" provides. Thus, "malleable" is the most appropriate word to complete the sentence.
In this context, "malleable" refers to something that can be easily shaped or influenced, making it the most fitting choice for a sentence discussing adaptability or flexibility. Option B, "obscure," implies something that is not well-known or hard to understand, which does not align with the intended meaning. Option C, "ominous," suggests a sense of foreboding or threat, which is unrelated to the idea of adaptability. Option D, "vigorous," conveys strength or energy but lacks the nuance of flexibility that "malleable" provides. Thus, "malleable" is the most appropriate word to complete the sentence.
Which of the following, if true, would most challenge the 'implication' mentioned in the fourth sentence? 'Some experts reject the implication that Çatalhöyük’s farmers cultivated distant fields, since large quantities of grain would have had to be transported.'
- A. Çatalhöyük's farmers obtained through trade the wheat and barley that Rosen analyzed.
- B. Çatalhöyük's farmers understood the impact of soil conditions on crop productivity.
- C. Çatalhöyük's farmers shared wheat and barley fields with neighboring villages.
- D. Çatalhöyük's farmers used wood that deteriorated in the damp environment.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Option A directly challenges the implication that farmers at Çatalhöyük cultivated distant fields by suggesting they obtained the grains through trade instead. This undermines the need for transporting large quantities of grain from faraway locations, thus supporting the idea that local cultivation was not necessary. Option B focuses on soil conditions but does not address the transportation issue, leaving the original implication intact. Option C implies shared resources with neighbors but does not clarify whether these fields were local or distant, failing to challenge the transportation concern. Option D discusses environmental factors unrelated to the cultivation and transport of grain, making it irrelevant to the implication.
Option A directly challenges the implication that farmers at Çatalhöyük cultivated distant fields by suggesting they obtained the grains through trade instead. This undermines the need for transporting large quantities of grain from faraway locations, thus supporting the idea that local cultivation was not necessary. Option B focuses on soil conditions but does not address the transportation issue, leaving the original implication intact. Option C implies shared resources with neighbors but does not clarify whether these fields were local or distant, failing to challenge the transportation concern. Option D discusses environmental factors unrelated to the cultivation and transport of grain, making it irrelevant to the implication.
In context, the metaphor in the third sentence ('it was only a subplot in a historical drama of time, place, and people that had been playing for thousands of years') chiefly serves to:
- A. call attention to the age of the United States as a nation
- B. question the literary value of the writings by Lewis and Clark
- C. trivialize the accomplishments of the Lewis and Clark expedition
- D. place the Lewis and Clark expedition into a broad context
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
The metaphor emphasizes the Lewis and Clark expedition as part of a much larger historical narrative, illustrating its significance within the vast timeline of human events. This context helps readers understand that while the expedition was important, it is just one chapter in a much larger story. Option A incorrectly focuses solely on the age of the United States, missing the broader historical context. Option B misinterprets the metaphor by suggesting it critiques the literary value of the writings, which is not the focus. Option C wrongly implies that the metaphor diminishes the expedition's significance, whereas it actually situates it within a grander narrative.
The metaphor emphasizes the Lewis and Clark expedition as part of a much larger historical narrative, illustrating its significance within the vast timeline of human events. This context helps readers understand that while the expedition was important, it is just one chapter in a much larger story. Option A incorrectly focuses solely on the age of the United States, missing the broader historical context. Option B misinterprets the metaphor by suggesting it critiques the literary value of the writings, which is not the focus. Option C wrongly implies that the metaphor diminishes the expedition's significance, whereas it actually situates it within a grander narrative.
In the second sentence of the passage ('a giant Saturn moon rocket dismantled into pieces for tourists to inspect, like lengths of fossilized bone from a mythic biotech dragon'), the simile primarily emphasizes the rocket's:
- A. dominance
- B. obsolescence
- C. superior engineering
- D. appeal to newcomers
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The simile compares the dismantled rocket to "fossilized bone from a mythic biotech dragon," highlighting its obsolescence. This imagery suggests that the rocket, once a marvel of technology, now resembles relics of a bygone era, evoking a sense of nostalgia rather than functionality. Option A, dominance, does not apply here, as the imagery does not convey power or superiority. Option C, superior engineering, is contradicted by the notion of the rocket being dismantled and inspected, which implies it is no longer operational. Option D, appeal to newcomers, is less relevant; the focus is more on the rocket's past significance than its current allure.
The simile compares the dismantled rocket to "fossilized bone from a mythic biotech dragon," highlighting its obsolescence. This imagery suggests that the rocket, once a marvel of technology, now resembles relics of a bygone era, evoking a sense of nostalgia rather than functionality. Option A, dominance, does not apply here, as the imagery does not convey power or superiority. Option C, superior engineering, is contradicted by the notion of the rocket being dismantled and inspected, which implies it is no longer operational. Option D, appeal to newcomers, is less relevant; the focus is more on the rocket's past significance than its current allure.