Both reading passage and the lecture are about the agricultural subsidy system that the US government used to provide for farmers. The author of the reading passage gives three reasons why the program should be continued. However, the professor in the lecture counters all three of them by describing how each possesses error.
The first theory from the article states that the subsidies will effectively secure the food supply. However, the professor disregards this by pointing out that the system would not necessarily increase the food supply. The professor gives an example of a corn which is being used more often as a source for bio-fuel ethanols rather than as food crops.
Secondly, the author of the reading passage argues that the financial assistance would lower the price of crops. This argument goes against the one made in the lecture, which claims that it would only raise the price of non- subsidized groceries, such as vegetables and fruits. According to the professor, as the support is only limited to certain crops, such as a corn or a wheat, it would not effectively ease customers’ financial burden.
Last but not least, the writer of the article contends that the system would help the local economies of rural areas by hiring more workers. However, the speaker casts doubt on this claim by maintaining that modern agriculture is mechanized, and therefore, the financial aid will not be helpful in lowering the unemployment rate of the rural communities. To be more specific, the speaker further adds that the system would only benefit the farm owners as they would expand their businesses by purchasing more agricultural machines instead of employing more workers.