▶ Your Answer :
According to the reading, there is ample
support for author's claim that the US government subsidies for farmers have
some advantages. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that
contradict this argument.
First, the professor insists that this
special payment do not stabilize national food supply. The reason why farmers grow
extra crops is to make alternatives products such as biofuel, not to supply
food. Actually, the overall increase of food has not changed in spite of
subsidies. This casts doubt on the reading passage's suggestion that subsidies
ensure that famers can grow their crops regardless of weather conditions, which
lead to positive impact on food supply.
Next, the professor argues that the cost of
some vegetables and fruits which are not subsidized would
be high. Farmers have focused on specific products such as corn and rice,
because the government has confined the kinds of crops that can receive additional
payments. Thus, it is wrong to say that farmers sell their harvests at an
inexpensive price. This counters the reading passage's assertion that economic
assistance for famers would decrease the price of food.
Finally, the professor contends that
subsidies only benefit farm owners, so the rural
communities cannot have positive financial
effect. Also, the agriculture industry has been getting mechanized. This means that farms are not needing more workers.
Therefore, it is unlikely that economic health in rural area will be promoted.
This refutes the reading passage's claim that subsidies can reduce poverty of
suburban area.
|