Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
08 Sep 2019, 04:11
The following was excerpted from an article in a farming trade publication:
“Farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming last year have seen their crop yields decline. Many of these farmers feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point, given the money that they invested in organic farming supplies and equipment. But their investments will be relatively minor compared to the losses from continued lower crop yields. Organic farmers should switch to synthetic farming rather than persist in an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
An article in a farming trade publication calls for farmers who have engaged in organic farming to switch back to synthetic farming. The author’s argument is flawed because the encouraged switch may be too soon, it may not be simple to execute, and the reasons a farmer engages in organic farming may be more profound than the author appears to assume.
First, the author refers to organic farmers who switched farming method only ‘last year’ to recommence synthetic farming. A ‘decline’ in crop yields is used to justify this. On the face of it, one year would arguably be a short timeframe on which to base what may be a significant decision for a farmer. One year may constitute only one crop. Ventures run for profit often use a more long term approach to production on which to base decisions. It is also not clear how significant the yield decline is from the passage. It may well be trivial, in which case the author’s use of this data would be undermined. Moreover, the author fails to make detailed reference to the financial impact of the lower yields. It could be that organic produce fetches a higher price than synthetically, or conventionally, produced agricultural products. The passage states that there may be losses from lower yields but it is suggested that this will only arise if there are ‘continued’ lower yields. And whilst it is clear that farmers have ‘invested’ in organic farming in the form of ‘supplies and equipment’, depreciation of capital goods is often, but not always, over a longer time span than simply a year. Indeed, later in the passage we are told that investments made have been ‘minor’ relative to possible losses from lower yields, which further undermines the author’s argument. To call for farmers to abandon organic farming after only one year, and possibly one crop, seems rash.
Second, the author curtly suggests that organic farmers should simply ‘switch’ back to synthetic farming citing perseverance as an ‘unwise’ course of action. It is possible that a farmer’s decision to pursue organic farming is based in part on factors less tangible and more profound than yields and capital investment. For instance, a farmer may pursue organic farming for ethical or personal reasons. Indeed, the farmer may well have engaged in other changes to reflect his organic pursuits, such as rebranding or marketing campaigns. The costs of switching may then be higher than the author suggests.
Third, the author suggests the decision to pursue organic farming on environmental grounds is financially unsound. Yet farmers operate in natural settings. Their business is based on harnessing natural produce. To pursue a commercial endeavour at least partly on purely non-financial grounds may be justified for a farmer who takes a wholistic approach to business, not merely a financial one.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the reasons set out. A more cogently made argument would rely on a longer time horizon on which to encourage what may be a significant decision for farmers. The article has appeared in a trade publication and so it is possible the author has a bias, perhaps due to commercial pressures around encouraging uptake of synthetic farming equipment or fertilisers. More information about organic crop yields and selling prices would be useful in determining the veracity of the author’s claims around the financial soundness of pursuing organic farming.
“Farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming last year have seen their crop yields decline. Many of these farmers feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point, given the money that they invested in organic farming supplies and equipment. But their investments will be relatively minor compared to the losses from continued lower crop yields. Organic farmers should switch to synthetic farming rather than persist in an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
An article in a farming trade publication calls for farmers who have engaged in organic farming to switch back to synthetic farming. The author’s argument is flawed because the encouraged switch may be too soon, it may not be simple to execute, and the reasons a farmer engages in organic farming may be more profound than the author appears to assume.
First, the author refers to organic farmers who switched farming method only ‘last year’ to recommence synthetic farming. A ‘decline’ in crop yields is used to justify this. On the face of it, one year would arguably be a short timeframe on which to base what may be a significant decision for a farmer. One year may constitute only one crop. Ventures run for profit often use a more long term approach to production on which to base decisions. It is also not clear how significant the yield decline is from the passage. It may well be trivial, in which case the author’s use of this data would be undermined. Moreover, the author fails to make detailed reference to the financial impact of the lower yields. It could be that organic produce fetches a higher price than synthetically, or conventionally, produced agricultural products. The passage states that there may be losses from lower yields but it is suggested that this will only arise if there are ‘continued’ lower yields. And whilst it is clear that farmers have ‘invested’ in organic farming in the form of ‘supplies and equipment’, depreciation of capital goods is often, but not always, over a longer time span than simply a year. Indeed, later in the passage we are told that investments made have been ‘minor’ relative to possible losses from lower yields, which further undermines the author’s argument. To call for farmers to abandon organic farming after only one year, and possibly one crop, seems rash.
Second, the author curtly suggests that organic farmers should simply ‘switch’ back to synthetic farming citing perseverance as an ‘unwise’ course of action. It is possible that a farmer’s decision to pursue organic farming is based in part on factors less tangible and more profound than yields and capital investment. For instance, a farmer may pursue organic farming for ethical or personal reasons. Indeed, the farmer may well have engaged in other changes to reflect his organic pursuits, such as rebranding or marketing campaigns. The costs of switching may then be higher than the author suggests.
Third, the author suggests the decision to pursue organic farming on environmental grounds is financially unsound. Yet farmers operate in natural settings. Their business is based on harnessing natural produce. To pursue a commercial endeavour at least partly on purely non-financial grounds may be justified for a farmer who takes a wholistic approach to business, not merely a financial one.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the reasons set out. A more cogently made argument would rely on a longer time horizon on which to encourage what may be a significant decision for farmers. The article has appeared in a trade publication and so it is possible the author has a bias, perhaps due to commercial pressures around encouraging uptake of synthetic farming equipment or fertilisers. More information about organic crop yields and selling prices would be useful in determining the veracity of the author’s claims around the financial soundness of pursuing organic farming.
Moderators:
189 posts
