Question

For over a century, orthodox historical narratives framed the Neolithic agricultural revolution as a triumphant leap forward in human well-being. Under this view, the domestication of plants and animals rescued humanity from the precarious, hand-to-mouth existence of foraging, replacing it with the security of a reliable surplus. However, recent bioarchaeological analyses of early agricultural skeletons paint a far bleaker picture, revealing widespread evidence of nutritional deficiencies, dental caries, and infectious diseases that were rare in hunter-gatherer populations. Proponents of the traditional narrative argue that despite these localized physiological costs, agriculture at least insulated early societies from the periodic famines that supposedly decimated mobile foragers. Yet, this defense overlooks a critical ecological vulnerability. While foragers relied on hundreds of diverse wild resources, early farmers tethered their survival to a small handful of monoculture crops. When weather, pests, or blight struck these staple crops, the consequences were systemic and catastrophic, resulting in famines far more devastating than the localized seasonal shortages experienced by hunter-gatherers.

Based on the passage, the author refers to the view that agriculture insulated early societies from periodic famines primarily in order to achieve which of the following rhetorical purposes?