29. This speaker argues that farmers who invested in organic farming equipment / p) j" `6 v: [5 r+ ]
should resume synthetic farming because it is financially unwise to continue organic
/ c: _! f* Q) v- w- E8 vfarming. The speaker cites studies showing that farmers who switched to organic ' _0 a0 l% ~' y* h8 h, O) i
farming last year had tower crop yields. Based on these studies, the speaker concludes ; f+ d& |2 Q3 ~5 r* `9 k2 W' z
that the relatively inexpensive investment in organic farming equipment cannot justify ; v* z1 e9 b# g" q) q9 I* s' H
continuing to farm organically. The speaker also claims that continuing to farm 6 d; ?( D0 \0 z7 n1 z+ V' ?8 ^/ {
organically is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental, not 0 W9 L4 I* ^ N! @5 o0 L
economic, concerns. The argument suffers from three problems.
( l& r: q3 ~% i) m5 ? X One problem with this reasoning involves the vague comparative claim that
- \/ k3 U4 }6 F) W) A' _farmers who switched to organic farming fast year had lower crop yields. We are not - M5 {% d$ \- ~; G
informed whether the survey compared last year's organic crop yields with yields from
0 [7 S9 v0 x; Hprevious years or with those from synthetic farms. Moreover, the author provides no . q; v* d. l- Q" e# l# p
evidence about how the survey was conducted. Lacking more information about the 6 R4 n2 ^5 A8 y% }
survey, we cannot accept the speaker's conclusion.
" q9 i4 d9 M5 c" `' w4 \ Secondly, the speaker assumes that the low crop yields for first-time organic
S% z- w9 A5 i* ?1 L; Ufarmers last year are representative of crop yields for organic farmers overall. However, ' P. M& @8 ~6 _! G* @$ r
more experienced organic farmers might have had much better crop yields last year.
' A3 v }% g9 W) r" TAlso, the first-time organic farmers might improve their own crop yields in future years. + U1 Z/ l+ H4 _- V, T
Moreover, last year's yield may have been unusually low due to poor weather or other 6 ]) I6 b; i. ^& N! {
factors, and thus not indicative of future yields.
5 U* f% I% v t$ J# N7 B& p1 ^. W Finally, in asserting that organic farming is financially unwise because it is
s& j# S- Q) vmotivated by environmental instead of economic concerns, the speaker unfairly assumes " C( `. h4 S8 n' Z+ S- s
that a practice cannot be both environmentally and economically beneficial. It is
Z$ a: M' v" V5 fpossible that, in the long run, practices that help protect the environment will also result
& l+ @# x+ n3 o8 f0 l( `in greater economic benefits. For instance, organic farming methods may better protect 2 s" |! M/ K' l U/ U- u3 H
soil from depletion of the elements that contribute to healthy crops, providing an . l3 B' t+ r( x. n V
economic benefit in the long run.0 e8 g/ Q2 y5 Y6 g" i# r$ F
In conclusion, the speaker's argument is poorly supported and is short-sighted. To
# w1 u# t& m! U" i0 `better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the how the
" ` R' N9 c+ L' E; T- P, v) Msurvey was conducted, especially about the comparison the survey makes. To strengthen
1 K) Y3 G! Y- \1 sthe argument, the speaker must present evidence that last years' crop yields from first-3 p! [0 C [& j# h1 X1 C2 L
time organic farmers are representative of yields among organic farms in general. The # P. C- K; N y: a. S- ~
author must also provide evidence that environmentally sound practices cannot be % I, p9 q; \7 X5 f$ E9 O/ `
economically beneficial as well. |