Final answer:
The statement that hunting and gathering can support a larger population than agriculture is false. Agriculture allows for larger populations due to a stable food supply and the possibility of creating surpluses, leading to population growth and societal development.
Step-by-step explanation:
One advantage of hunting and gathering is that it is able to support a larger population than agriculture. This statement is false. Agriculture, in contrast to hunting and gathering, allows for a much larger population. It provides a more stable and consistent supply of food with the potential for a surplus that can be stored. This, in turn, enabled the establishment of cities and larger communities, as a significant surplus of food is required for a large group to remain in a single place for an extended period.
Despite the benefits of a diverse diet and more leisure time found in hunting and gathering societies, these societies maintained relatively static population levels due to the lack of a surplus of food. With the advent of agriculture around 12,000 years ago, humans could increase the carrying capacity of their environment, supporting the growth of larger societies. Hence, while hunter-gatherers had the advantage of a varied diet and less work time, agriculture had the distinct benefit of enabling population growth and the development of more complex societal structures.