Directions: In the following question consists of a statement followe...
Clearly, shifting agriculture is a practice in which a certain crop is grown on land and when it becomes infertile it is left bare and another piece of land is chosen. Clearly, it is a wasteful practice. So, the only argument I hold.
Hence, the correct option is (A).
View all questions of this test
Directions: In the following question consists of a statement followe...
Argument I: No. It is a wasteful practice.
Shifting agriculture, also known as slash-and-burn agriculture or swidden agriculture, is a traditional farming method in which land is cleared by cutting down and burning vegetation, and crops are then cultivated on the cleared land for a few years until the soil fertility declines. The argument states that shifting agriculture is a wasteful practice.
Reasons supporting Argument I:
1. Soil degradation: Shifting agriculture involves clearing large areas of land, which leads to soil erosion and depletion of nutrients. As a result, the land becomes less fertile over time, making it difficult to sustain long-term agricultural productivity.
2. Loss of biodiversity: The practice of burning vegetation and clearing land disrupts natural ecosystems, leading to a loss of biodiversity. This loss of biodiversity can have negative consequences for the environment and local ecosystems.
3. Unsustainable farming method: Shifting agriculture is often practiced in remote and hilly areas where access to modern agricultural inputs and technologies is limited. The reliance on traditional farming methods without proper infrastructure and resources makes it an unsustainable practice.
Argument II: Yes. Modern methods of farming are too expensive.
The second argument claims that modern methods of farming are too expensive, implying that shifting agriculture should be practiced instead.
Reasons supporting Argument II:
1. Cost of inputs: Modern farming methods require substantial investments in machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, and other inputs. These costs can be prohibitive for small-scale farmers or those with limited financial resources.
2. High dependency on external inputs: Modern farming methods often rely heavily on external inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This dependency can lead to environmental pollution, health risks, and increased vulnerability to price fluctuations in the market.
3. Sustainability: Shifting agriculture, when practiced in a controlled and sustainable manner, can provide an alternative to the high input costs and environmental concerns associated with modern farming methods. It allows farmers to utilize natural resources and adapt to local conditions.
Conclusion:
Argument I is strong because it highlights the negative impacts of shifting agriculture, such as soil degradation and loss of biodiversity. These concerns are valid and need to be addressed in order to promote sustainable agricultural practices.
Argument II is weak as it does not provide a strong justification for practicing shifting agriculture. While it mentions the expense of modern farming methods, it does not consider the long-term sustainability and environmental impacts associated with shifting agriculture.
Overall, shifting agriculture should be discouraged due to its negative environmental and ecological consequences, and efforts should be made to promote more sustainable and efficient farming practices.