Marge maintains that there is no direct correlation between population density and poverty. Mason argues that population density is normally associated with poverty and political instability. Who is correct?
A. Marge and Mason are both incorrect.
B. Marge and Mason are both partially correct.
C. Marge is correct.
D. Mason is correct.
An C
I'm a bit confused because my notes say:
Population density is the number of people per square mile (or square kilometer, depending on the source). Very high density may result in extreme poverty and political turbulence. This is the case in many areas of the Mideast and Africa. However, there is no direct correlation between population density and poverty. For example, Western Europe is among the world’s most robust economies, even though the population density of the Eurozone is more than double that of the United States.
1 answer
I think what your notes indicate (probably accurately) is that poverty rates may be high in high density areas, there is no cause and effect correlation. You can't say that people are poor BECAUSE they live in a high-density area. There also may be more (relatively) wealthy people in a high density area, too. There are just more people in a high density population, period, both rich and poor. One must ask if the people afflicted by poverty would still be poor in a less dense, more rural, area. When it comes to political turbulence, where people can band together to resist established political power might that result in more turbulence than where people are more isolated in less densely populated areas? More study may be required to find a direct cause and effect between poverty levels and population density as it relates to political turbulence. So, both may be partially correct or, if there is no direct correlation, Marge is correct, although political turbulence may be more common in high density areas where poverty is predominant, as in Africa and the Mideast, as opposed to Europe, where people are generally more affluent.