The following was excerpted from the speech of a spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products Inc.:
"Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence their purchase of organic farming equipment, a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields, cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns."
The author of the argument has failed to convince us that the most financially wise choice for farmers would be to switch from organic fertilizers and pesticides to synthetic ones. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.
First of all, regarding the study of farmers, the author does not clarify whether the sample of farmers asked or observed is quantitatively and, most importantly, qualitatively representative of the whole farming population that switched to organic farming. Different regions have different requirements in the cultivation process, pesticides and fertilizers. For example, farming in colder regions, like in Alaska, has different standards than warmer regions like Central America or Mediterranean. The same applies for the type of plants and their sensitivity on organic or synthetic fertilizers. Did the farmers who switch to organic farming share common background like region and/or type of plants farmed? The spokesperson should have clarified these points in order to establish the legitimacy and representativity of the studied sample.
Next, the spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products, makes a questionable assumption that the organic fertilizers and pesticides are the main reason for the lower crop yields. However, he/she fails to realize that many other reasons could have resulted in the alleged lower crop yields. For instance, harsh meteorological events, climate-incompatible product farming, lack of much needed rain or plant diseases could have had a negative impact on the quantity of crop yields this year. Furthermore, more time may be needed for organic farming to give the best possible results, perhaps two or three years, for the soil to get the most out of organic fertilizers and pesticides. A more direct link between organic farming and lower crop yields would strengthen the assumption. Furthermore, the arguer falsely assumes that the last year trend will continue for the years to come. However, there is no evidence or reference to any related prognosis that verifies the assumed future trend.
Finally, it is claimed that the choice to farm organically is financially unwise because it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. Again, the spokesperson makes the assumption that environmental concerns cannot be at the same time financially wise, failing to see that there may be an increasing demand by consumers for organic products, a trend definitely justifying the switch of some farmers to organic cultivation. In addition, what if the current market trend and consumers awareness allows a higher charge for products farmed with organic fertilizers and pesticides? This situation could also justify the switch, thus, the arguer should have elucidated this major point.
To sum up, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the arguer's reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed above, it would have been more thorough and convincing.
Comments
Edited 1st argument for
Edited 1st argument for reevaluation. I need to achieve a 5.5 or 6.0 score. Thanks
We would not suggest you
We would not suggest you arguing against the studies. whatever the types or which regions or sizes, the result of the studies is the same like this: farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower.
We think the argument 2 and argument 3 are good enough for 5.5 or 6.0.
------------------------
condition 1:
But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. //first part of your argument 2:
the spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products, makes a questionable assumption that the organic fertilizers and pesticides are the main reason for the lower crop yields. However, he/she fails to realize that many other reasons could have resulted in the alleged lower crop yields. For instance, harsh meteorological events, climate-incompatible product farming, lack of much needed rain or plant diseases could have had a negative impact on the quantity of crop yields this year.
condition 2:
Hence their purchase of organic farming equipment, a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields, cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. //second part of your argument 2:
more time may be needed for organic farming to give the best possible results, perhaps two or three years, for the soil to get the most out of organic fertilizers and pesticides. A more direct link between organic farming and lower crop yields would strengthen the assumption. Furthermore, the arguer falsely assumes that the last year trend will continue for the years to come. However, there is no evidence or reference to any related prognosis that verifies the assumed future trend.
conclusion:
And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. //your argument 3
argument 1 -- well, we have to accept the studies are true. So we can't cast doubt on them like:
'Also, we have no figures about the lower percentage of the crop yields compared to the past year or years and therefore we cannot accept the arguer's claim that the purchase of organic farming equipment is a minor investment compared with the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields. '
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 446 350
No. of Characters: 2345 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.596 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.258 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.939 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.009 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5