Critical reasoning – Should shifting (slash-and-burn) agriculture be practised? Statement: “Should shifting agriculture be practised?” Arguments to evaluate: I. No. It is a wasteful practice. II. Yes. Modern methods of farming are too expensive.
Verbal Reasoning
Statement and Argument
Difficulty: Easy
Choose an option
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:“Shifting agriculture” (often slash-and-burn) involves clearing forested land, cropping briefly, and then moving on. The arguments must be judged for environmental, agronomic, and economic logic.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Argument I labels the practice wasteful (soil degradation, deforestation).
- Argument II supports it due to the high cost of modern farming.
- No specific region or mitigation measures are provided.
Concept / Approach:A strong argument should weigh sustainability. Modern agronomy offers alternatives (terracing, agroforestry, minimal till, micro-irrigation) that can be cost-effective compared to ecosystem damage from shifting cultivation.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Supported by well-known environmental consequences—nutrient mining, erosion, biodiversity loss, and carbon emissions. It identifies systemic wastage. Hence, strong.Argument II: High cost of modern methods does not, by itself, justify an environmentally harmful method; cost can be addressed via subsidies, training, or low-input techniques. Hence, weak.Verification / Alternative check:
Sustainable intensification and agroecology provide lower-cost alternatives superior to shifting cultivation in most contexts.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II strong / Either / Neither / Both: These ignore the sustainability imperative or overstate cost as a sole determinant.Common Pitfalls:
Confusing short-term affordability with long-term viability.Final Answer:Only argument I is strong