Question

some suggest that we could reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture by stopping the use of all pesticides. why is this unlikely? pests would be significantly reduced. food costs would increase by 50%.

Explanation:

To determine why stopping all pesticide use is unlikely, we analyze the options:

• The first option ("Pests would be significantly reduced") is incorrect because without pesticides, pests (insects, weeds, etc.) would likely increase, damaging crops.
• The second option ("Food costs would increase by 50%") is a valid reason: Without pesticides, crop yields would drop due to pest damage. Lower supply (with constant or increasing demand) raises production costs for farmers, who pass this to consumers, increasing food prices. This aligns with agricultural and economic realities of pest management.

Answer:

The correct option is: Food costs would increase by 50%. (Because without pesticides, pest damage would reduce crop yields, lowering supply. Reduced supply with stable/increasing demand raises production costs, leading to higher food prices for consumers.)