Question

(03.03 hc)
several local farms have been using pesticides associated with illnesses appearing in your community. you are a public monitoring official in charge of making a decision to address the problem, and you chose to make a law that forces those farmers to reduce their use of pesticides. which of the following is a social consequence that may be expected?
○ environmentalists may argue that a simple reduction may not be enough to protect ecosystems health.
○ farmers will suffer the most if they are unable to find safer products to use in their lands.
○ there could be fewer crops, which may lead to a reduction in local food resources for all consumers.
○ lobbyists can argue that the reduction of the use of these chemicals directly affects the industry success.

Explanation:

A social consequence involves the impact on people and their interactions. The option about fewer crops leading to reduced local food resources for all consumers directly affects the community (social group) in terms of access to food. Environmentalists' argument is about ecosystems (environmental aspect), farmers suffering is more of an economic - hardship for a specific group (farmers), and lobbyists' argument is about industry (business - related).

Answer:

There could be fewer crops, which may lead to a reduction in local food resources for all consumers.