In
this given set of materials, there is a discrepancy between the view of the
author and the lecturer over the issue of agricultural subsidies. With three
cogent explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the alleged positive
aspects of them.
To
start with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since overall
food production does not increase. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer claims
that a lot of famer who have received agricultural subsidies for overall 5 years grow corn used as a biofuel. Therefore, this does not contribute to the food supply.
This is in direct opposition to the author's claim that they lead to a steady
and sufficient supply of food.
On
top of that, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's point
on agricultural subsidies. The lecturer sounds convinced that the
author is making an manifest error on the price of food since it would rise for some of the most nutritious types of foods.
She asserts that many famers tend to grow certain crops like corn
or wheat which help them to recieve public assistance. Eventually it will result in the higher price of fruits and vegetables which
are not farmed by them. However, the author clarifies that agricultural
subsidies cause the price of food to be lower.
Thirdly,
the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final idea on a economical
effect on rural communities is flawed. The lecturer mentions that farmers
are purchasing equipments for their farming instead of hiring more workers in
the communities because they are regarded as more beneficial ones. This
counters the author's theory that subsidies help rural communities to reduce
their poverty and get better economically by providing more oppotunities to be employed.