▶ Your Answer :
The lecturer forms argument that the government should not keep to offer agriculture subsidies. In stark contrast, the reading passage claims that it is necessary for government to provide the subsidies to farmers. First of all, the lecturer asserts that the disbursements do not stabilize the supply of food. The speaker says that it do not cause overall increase of food production. For example, those who received most amounts of subsidiaries from US governments in 5 years are people who produce not crops, but bio-fuel. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that it helps farmers to raise additional crops to compensate for any geographic losses, resulting in a steady, enough supply of food. Furthermore, the lecturer maintains that it do not decrease the price of food. The speaker argues that it will increase specific nutrition types of crops. Farmer will be likely to focus on the crops that the subsidiaries are offered, such as corn and wheat. So, some crops, which the subsidiaries are not provided, will cause increased prices of food. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that the assistance for farmer can lower the price of food. The final point made by the lecturer is that the assistance do not trigger economic prosperity in rural communit. The speaker argues that when farmers have to increase the amount of land under culitvation, they will not hire new farmers, but new equipments. This refutes the reading passage whih states that increase of land under cultivation will bring about reduced poverty with rising job opportunity.
|