▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, the author stated that the United States government should maintain the agricultural subsidies based on several reasons. However, the professor in the lecture gives several rationales as a rebuttal to the author's assertion. I'll introduce the professor's reasons in the following. First of all, the professor in the lecture stated that agricultural subsidies to farmers cannot stabilize the overall food supply in U.S. As recipients of agricultural subsidies usually grow corns in order to produce biofuel such as ethanol, this increase in corn production will not cause the overall increase in food production in U.S. This reasoning refutes the author's argument that agricultural subsidies can stabilize the food supply since the subsidies can encourage farmers nationwide to grow additional crops to make up for any regional losses. Secondly, the professor in the lecture asserted that the subsidies can increase the price of food rather than lower it. As only farmers growing specific crops, such as soy, rice, corns can receive the subsidies, farmers will not grow other kinds of crops and vegetables. As a result, since vegetables except designated crops for subsidies will not be produced enough by farmers, the price of other vegetables will drastically skyrocket. This statement counters the author's assertion that the agricultural subsidies will lower the price of food as costs relevant to agriculture will be offset by subsidies. Additionally, the professor in the lecture argued that the subsidies will not be useful to promote economic health in rural communities. Due to developments in agricultural technologies, farm owners will not employ more people but purchase more equipment (equipment는 불가산동사입니다). Consequently, subsidies toward farm owners cannot have huge influence on economic condition in rural areas. In addition, since the subsidies have an impact only to farm owners not to residents who do not have their own farms, the economic effect of the subsidies will not be prodigious at all. In a nutshell, while the statement supporting benefits of U.S. agricultural subsidies asserted by the author in the reading passage looked quite plausible under certain circumstance, it does not have enough credibility to persuade the professor in the lecture. In order to bolster this assertion's credibility, the author of the reading passage have to provide more specific data and rationales.
|