▶ Your Answer : The writer of the article enumerates three
reasons supporting that economic support for farmers offered a lot of benefit
and should be continue. In relation to this, the lecturer claims that these
reasons are dwarfed by corresponding counterarguments.
To begin with, the reading passage asserts
that this assistance stabilized food supply when considering the fact that it
encouraged farmer to grow additional crops. However, this assertion is
adversely commented upon by a corresponding counterargument. According to the
speaker, it didn’t result in increase of overall crop production. As a result,
the assertion presented in the written part does not hold any water.
Furthermore, it is also maintained that
this support lowered the price of food on the ground that the farmer were able
to get profit without costing a lot on crops because of the economic assistance
from the government. This might be true in some aspects, however the lecturer expresses
skepticism on this viewpoint by arguing that only major products’ prices became
cheaper than the past. This means that minor products such as vegetables or
fruits became more expensive than ever before. Therefore, it is a bit of an
exaggeration to say that this policy contribute to decline of crop prices.
Lastly, the reading material purports that
the economic support stimulated economic development of rural communities in
that it encouraged lots of employments. However, this view of point is somewhat
myopic. Based on what the speaker says, there was no need to hire more workers
because it was more efficient to use some mechanical instruments. As a result,
it is improper to say that this reason supporting the content that the economic
help of government promoted improvement of countryside is valid. |