Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on foo

Perhaps so... I thought the reason why he would agree is because of the statement towards the end"... without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture."

But maybe I did leap the logic a little. It did not mention about eroding wild-life....

Wats the question source??

Even I picked 'D', since hampton says without significantly decreasing land, means he slightly agree with Kims statement of forest and wild life depletion.

In 'B', Hamp says in first part, you are completly overlooking the possiblity of technology, means Kim dint agreed in his first statemnt, may be later 'Yes' but that will be over assumption, he might counter the argument.

Any better reason for 'B' to be right?

Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on food producers in ways that threaten our natural resources. With more land needed for both food production and urban areas, less land will be available for forests and wildlife habitats.
Hampton: You are overlooking the promises of technology. I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture.
Kim’s and Hampton’s statements most strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?
(A) Efforts should be taken to slow the rate of human population growth and to increase the amount of land committed to agriculture.
(B) Continued research into more-efficient agricultural practices and innovative biotechnology aimed at producing more food on less land would be beneficial.
(C) Agricultural and wilderness areas need to be protected from urban encroachment by preparing urban areas for greater population density.
(D) In the next half century, human population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests.
(E) The human diet needs to be modified in the next half century because of the depletion of our natural resources due to overpopulation.

My tots on the answer is :- Answer given is :-
Doubt answer given... suggestions/explainations pls? Thks so much !! =)

Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on food producers in ways that threaten our natural resources. With more land needed for both food production and urban areas, less land will be available for forests and wildlife habitats.

Hampton: You are overlooking the promises of technology. I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture.

Kim’s and Hampton’s statements most strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?

Hello expert,
I think both B and D are probably agreed by Kim and Hampton.
B is what Hampton said clearly, but whether or not Kim agreed, we don’t know. Just probably Kim agreed.
D is what Kim said clearly, and Hampton said “without significantly increasing”——>means will still increase but probably increased at a low speed. So Hampton probably agree “will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests”.
Need your help expert and much thanks.

Hi Mavisdu1017.

Sometimes, we have to consider the likely thinking of the question writer when answering a CR question.

In this case, it's likely that the writer believed that (D) contradicts what Hampton said, "I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture," even though, as you said, "without significantly increasing" does imply that there will be some increase.

I am able to reject A, C, D and E. But for option B, Kim is not saying anything about continued research and more efficient agricultural practices. Can anyone please clarify?