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
Discussion & Comments