Both the reading passage and the lecturer discuss agricultural subsidies,
which are special payments to farmers based on
food production. The lecturer, however, casts doubt on the author's assertion
that agricultural subsidies provide several benefits, by presenting three
counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer asserts that agricultural subsidies do not result in an increase in food production. For example, farmers
grow corns to produce ethanol, not for the purpose of food supply. This refutes the reading passage's claim that
agricultural subsidies will stabilise stabilize
the food suply supply through sufficient
supply of food from farmers.
Second, the lecturer says that agricultural subsidies rather increase the
price of food. The US public assistance is only
for specific harvest, such as wheat and not for other essential food. Thus,
farmers will tend to concentrate on harvesting food that are supported by the goverment
government and reduce production of vegetables
or fruits, eventually leading to an increase in price of these. (price of these보다 their prices가 더 잘 어울립니다.) This counters the author's claim that subsidies will reduce the price of
food.
Lastly, the lecturer claims that because farming is mechanised mechanized, farmers would not higher hire more workers to increase production. According to him, farmers will purchase machines to
increase the production of food. It will not lead to economic growth
as the owners will only benefit and not the workers. This refutes the
reading passage's claim that subsidies promote economic growth in the society.
Writing
0-30 Score Scale |
Fair (17-23) |
Score |
22 |
Overall
Comment: |
Good try. 쓰실 수록 실력이
느는게 눈에 보여요. 철자 오류가 매우 많으세요. 마무리하시기 전에 한 번 더 쓰신 글을 검토하시는 습관을 길르시는 걸 추천 드려요. |
|
|