▶ Your Answer :
There is ample support for the reading
passage's assertion that the US government should continue providing subsidies
to farmers. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a
rebuttal to the author's points.
First, the professor contends that
providing subsidies won't help stabilize the food supply. Since the variety of
subsidized products is limited to some agricultural products, sometimes it can
be used in other ways, not just for farming. For example, corn, one of the most
famous subsidized products, has used for biofuel, which is not related to
farming. It means the goal to stabilize food can be failed. This casts doubt on
the reading passage's claim that subsidies can be inceptive to stabilize the
food supply by reducing the effect from weather or regional factors.
Second, the professor asserts that giving
subsidies are not helpful to lower the price. Public subsidies are given to
some products that are not actually prerequisite in citizens' life. For
example, lots of vegetables and fruits are not included in the lists so the
farmers dislike cropping those products which lead to the price increase of
those groceries. On the contrary, this contradicts the reading passage's
suggestion that economic assistance can result in a lower price of food.
Lastly, the professor inserts that giving
subsidies cannot affect promoting rural communities' economic health. Since
modern agriculture is based on mechanics, it won't need much workforce to work
in rural. To be specific, the subsidies can be only used to buy new tools, not
for the encouragement of employment opportunities. However, this opposes to the
reading passage's assertion that subsidies can promote the economic health of
rural communities.
|