Passage Summary: A farmer says that because organic farming is less efficient than using chemicals, we have to stop organic farming from growing any further to avoid starving the world.

Conclusion: To ensure there is enough food for everyone, organic farming practices should not expand beyond their current level.

Reasoning: Organic farming produces less food per acre than artificial fertilizer methods, and switching entirely to organic would result in a food shortage.

Analysis: This argument suffers from a classic 'all-or-nothing' flaw. The farmer proves that a *total* shift to organic farming would be a disaster, but then concludes that *any* further increase in organic farming must be stopped. It ignores the possibility that we could increase organic farming to some degree without reaching the point of a global food shortage. Look for an answer that points out the argument treats a partial increase as if it would inevitably lead to the same result as a total replacement.