▶ Your Answer :According to the reading, there is ample support for the author's claim that agriculture subsidies should be continued since there are benefits. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor insists that the subsidies cannot result in increasing food supply. The reason is that farmers who got the money are only interested in cultivating corn which is the main source of ethanol and not related to food. It means that they do not contribute to stabilizing the food supply. This counts doubt on the reading passage's assertion that subsidies encourage the farmers to grow crops so that food supply can be stable.
Second, the professor argues that it is not true that the price of food decrease. To explain, in order to get subsidies, farmers only grow certain crops such as corn, soy, and wheat. In other words, they are reluctant to cultivate other crops and it is no wonder that other vegetation's price goes up. This refutes the reading passage's claim that since subsidies can offset the cost of crop, their price decrease.
Finally, the professor claim that the rural economy fail due to mechanism. Farmer do not need to hire workers because purchasing equipment is more beneficial to them and it only makes the owner of land be more advantageous. This counters the reading passage's suggestion that subsidies allow farmers to increase more land so that they can play a significant role in rural economy. |