| |
| |
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that the US government’s significant payment to farmers should not be stopped. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. To begin with, the lecturer argues that subsidies do not stabilize the food supply because it does not result in an overall increase in the food supply. For example, over five years, farmers cultivated corn to produce ethanol. Those farmers did not contribute to the overall national food supply. This opposes the reading passage’s claim that the country will have enough supply of food. On top of that, the professor points out that farmers grow only some nutritious type of food. To be specific, farmers only harvest a certain type of fruit and food so a small amount of food will be yield. Therefore, the price of vegetable and fruit will be raised. This disputes the reading passage’s claim that subsidies will lessen the cost of food because farmers can sell vegetable and fruit at a lower price due to government special payment. Finally, the lecturer asserts that subsidies would not help rural people economically. To explain specifically, cultivation is largely mechanized in these days so farmers use a lot of apparatus. Thus, they will not hire a lot of workers. Therefore, subsidies is not beneficial for people who live in rural area. This refutes the reading passage’s claim that economic health will be promoted by subsidies because it will encourage owners to hire many workers in a rural community. | |
|