▶ Your Answer : The
reading passage contends that agricultural subsidies should be continued by
giving three reasons. On the other hand, the lecture disputes this argument by
saying that none of the three reasons are compelling. First
of all, the speaker asserts that agricultural subsidies does not increase the
amount of food supply. According to the lecture, most recipients of this
payment are corn farmers that utilize corn to make ethanol as a biofuel. This
means that agricultural subsidies does not contribute to the stabilization of
food. This rebuffs the reading’s claim that this policy encourages farmers to
grow additional crops.
Second,
the lecturer claims that agricultural subsidies actually makes nutritious food
expensive. To be specific, farmers who grow certain crops including corn, soy,
and rice only benefit from this policy. As a consequence, farmers only focus on
these crops and produce less fruits and vegetables, and thus leading to an
overall increase in grocery spending. This counters the reading passage’s
assertion that agricultural subsidies will bring the decrease in the price of
food.
Finally,
the lecture argues that agricultural subsidies does not help improving the
standard of living in the countryside. According to the lecture, farmers will
not hire more workers to cultivate more land. Instead, farmers will purchase equipment.
Therefore, with this policy, only owner of the farms will benefit, not the
residents. This contradicts the reading passage’s argument that agricultural
subsidies contribute to the economic development. |