Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers an

Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticide in farming is harmful to local wildlife. To produce the same amount of food, however, more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used than when chemicals are used. Therefore, organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for local wildlife.

Chemical Fertilizers & Pesticide -> harms local WL
Organic farming to produce = food amounts produced by Chemical Farming -> Need more lands
Organic farming -> reduces lands for local WL

So OF takes up more land, leading to less land for local life. Why is that? It seems like taking when OF uses the land, the local wild animals could not live in that area. I don't know but Organic Farming does not sound any bad to me. So It might not be bad for the wild animals as well. Could they share that area? Let's find out.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument depends?



This neither increases nor decreases the amount of land of wildlife habitat. (A) is out

So Chemical fields are the serious issue here. Nothing is discussed about the Organic Fields. (B) is out

This is talking about the potential effect on wildlife, rather than the effect on the wildlife's lands.

Whatever can be grown does not matter. What matter is LAND LAND LAND!

This supports the conclusion. This eliminates the possibility that Wild Animals could share the land with OF.

Only E is remaining. E is the correct answer.