Toward the finish of the sixteenth century, a Church of England minister and mathematician, Thomas Malthus, reasoned that, if unchecked, populaces would be liable to exponential development. His persuasive 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population contended that populace development would exceed development in nourishment generation, prompting regularly expanding starvation and destitution.
He wasn't right: populace kept expanding however so did sustenance creation on account of upgrades in horticulture. His negative view was a response against Enlightenment scholars Antoine-Nicolas Condorcet and William Godwin who contended that social hopelessness was brought about by damaged establishments which could be tended to by change. Malthus figured welfare estimates only escalated impoverishment since they enabled the poor to breed more.
The reason why more and newer food were equal in the 16th century was because of the explorations and the newly gained territories in South America and North America.
Once the Europeans set foot on the New World they encountered lot of plants with which they were not familiar earlier. They were plants that were very useful, good as a prime source of food, as spices, as delicacies, as additions. Because of this lot of new species of cultivated plants were introduced into Europe. This introduction of new species was very popular, so the production of food on the continent started to equal the import of agricultural products from the new world, as well as producing them on European soil.
Explanation: Production were much more organized during the late 19th century and on a larger scale because of factories. (B) doesn't make sense because wage level were not going up, (C) is wrong because it said "only" to foreign markets, and lastly (D) is wrong because government had less involvement in business (laissez-faire).
