▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's point about the several benefits of the agricultural subsidies. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's claim. First, the professor insists that the subsidies do not result in increase in the food supply. In fact, there is no relation between subsidies and the food produce. This is because lots of farmers who were given subsidies use them mostly to produce ethanol, not food. This casts doubts on the reading passage's assertion that thanks to subsidies, the food supply became stabilized in spite of harsh weather. Second, the professor contends that the subsidies even raise the price of food. To explain, the government provides subsidies only for the nutritious food such as corn, soy and rice. In other words, the production of other foods like vegetables and fruits cannot be increased, resulting in higher price. In this sense, the overall price of food would not be lowered. This refutes the reading passage's claim that because the subsidies complement for the costs necessary in farming, consumers can buy foods in lower prices. Third, the professor argues that economic health cannot be helped by the subsidies. In fact, farmers choose to buy equipments for farming rather than hire workers. Therefore, the subsides will only benefit owners not the residents. This counters the reading passage's point that the increase in the land cultivation would make farmers employ more workers. Good (24–30) 전체적으로 내용 정리 깔끔하게 잘하셨습니다. 문법 실수도 없으시네요.
표현에서 choose to를 넣으면 더 매끄러워서 넣었습니다. 수고하셨습니다~ |