▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage there is ample support for the author's claim that the government's subsides are beneficial. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point. First, the professor contends that the subsides do not result in increase of food productions. In the US, subsides are usually given for corns, which are used to make ethanol. So, production of staples cannot be affected by subsides for those are used for such a biofuel. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that it stabilizes food supply because farmers can grow additional crops for the subsides.
Next, the professor insists that it cannot help food price lower. Sometimes it even help increase for some crops. Subsides are concentrated on only some crops, such as corn and rice. For this reason, farmer would put almost their whole efforts to these crops, and not for others. The cost of other crops would be increased because of limited amounts of them. This counters the reading passage's assertion that it can lower the price of food in that the possible offset caused by subsides will make profits for farmers even though the crops cost low.
Finally, the professor argues that it does not help economic growth in rural areas. In this industrialized society, most farms have been mechanized. They would not hire employees more, even though there are subsides. They would prefer to use that money on purchasing more machinaries. It would help just for owners' benefits, not for prosperity of communities. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that it will make rural areas more healthier and less poverty.
|