Prompt:
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.”

Essay:
The spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products,in his speech, contends that it would be unwise for the farmers to organically do farming. In order to substantiate his claim, the spokesperson utilizes the fact that studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. According to him, even though farmers feel that switching from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides would be expensive, the continued lower crop yields that would result from organic farming does not justify the organic farming over synthetic farming. He also brings out that organic farming is financially unwise and organic farming is motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. Despite the evidence presented by the spokesperson, the argument is not persuasive enough in order to convince the reader that organic farming is unwise compared to synthetic farming.

Firstly, a major lacuna in the given argument is absence of the details regarding the study which has provided the lower crop yields of farms that switched to organic farming last year. As the method of conduct of the study is questionable, the conclusion arrived at by studies of the farmers cannot be deemed as reliable. There is no mention of the farmers who were a part of the survey. It is likely that the studies took into account a disproportionate number of farmers who are probably younger generation and hence, the lack of experience would have resulted in lower crop yields. In such a case, the statistics cannot hold true for all the farmers and hence the conclusion of the argument is baseless. The argument could have been strengthened if the arguer had included details of the cross-section of farmers who were a part of the survey in such a way that their responses could have reflected the yields of all the farmers who switched to organic farming.

Secondly, the spokesperson relates the switch farmers did to organic farming last year and the crop yields of the current year. The author doesn’t provide any evidence to convince us that the lower crop yields are indeed because of switching of the farmers to organic farming. It is possible that the farmers switched to synthetic farming current year and so the lower crop yields. Lower rainfall and harsh weather conditions might have also resulted in lower crop yields. Therefore, the spokesperson’s arguments seems unreasonable. Moreover, the spokesperson compares the actions of last year with the results of current year. The current year results are because of the current year actions and partly because of the previous years actions taken. Hence, it it not right to compare the results of the current year only with the actions taken last year.

Lastly, nowhere in the argument, has the spokesperson explicitly stated the numbers of investment and losses. Therefore, assuming that continued use of organic farming will be financially unwise is far-fetched. In order to strengthen his claim, the spokesperson has to clearly mention the numbers of investment made by the farmers into new equipment and the losses that occurred due to low crop yields. It is possible that the farmers are more concerned about the environmental consequences of farming than are concerned about the economics of farming.

The argument could have been better substantiated had there been enough evidence that encompassed the yields of all the farmers who switched to organic farming. Also, there should have been more evidence in support of the claim that the switch to organic farming was a major reason for lower crop yields. The spokesperson would have further strengthened his argument by providing numbers of investment and losses. Without sufficient evidence, we cannot accept the argument. Therefore, the argument sounds unconvincing due to lack of sufficient evidence in support of the claim made.


P.S: This is my first essay. I know it could be better. Please feel free to comment.

'farm organically'

Lacuna = AWESOME WORD!

argument is 'the' absence of details

Is it likely that the study took into account a disproportionate number of farmers who are in the younger generation? - You don't know this - be careful making your own assumptions. I think I see what you are getting at, in providing an example of how the study could be unreliable. However, I think this needs to be posed as "If it was found that the study took into account... then that would undermine/prove/weaken point x".

With your second point, you claim the farmer could have returned to synthetic farming - which was why there was a loss, however I don't think this is a hole in the argument. Your points about the lower crop yield being due to other factors are valid. However, the argument pretty clearly covers that we are talking about farmers who feel it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming, indicating that they are still farming organically.

Investment and loss - do you mean profit and loss. I had the same thoughts on the argument - that lower yields does not necessarily = lower profits; for example, if the produce sells at a premium price in the market, then that premium makes up for the lower yield.

Structure = good, you missed a few pronouns and definite articles in there,

Could someone please look into my response below and let me know the points of improvement :

The argument states that many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point and the argument further states that as per studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence the argument concludes that the purchase of organic farming equipment is a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continues lower crop yields and therefore persisting organic farming is an unwise decision. The argument further states that choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. The argument stated in this way is based on flawed assumptions. Also the argument fails to mention several key factors based on which this can be evaluated. The flaws in the argument are detailed in subsequent paragraphs.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the current low crop yields of organic farming would continue and the yields are not going to improve in future. There is no premise available to support this assumption. This assumption is based on data for only 1 year. For instance, there is a possibility that the yields are lower only because of some environmental factors such as floods or droughts this year and these yields will increase in subsequent years. If we would have been provided data for 10 years then we would be in a better position to make a decision about yields from organic farming. Hence the given information in the argument is not sufficient to assume that yields would continue to be lower.

Secondly, the argument states that the choice to farm organically was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns but there is no data available to support this statement. Moreover there is a possibility that saving environment may result in economic benefits. For example, it is well known that the fertilizers and pesticides used in organic farming are less harmful for soil as compared to the fertilizers and pesticides used in synthetic farming.
Thus this step to save soil from harmful effects would result in better quality of crop in future and thus might attract a higher price in market. Therefore assuming that organic farming would not result in economic benefits is not a justified statement.

Finally, the information provided in argument is based on short term observations only. The argument specifies that this data is taken from farmers who shifted to organic farming just last year. This is a very narrow database and thus conclusion made based on this is not substantive.

To conclude, the argument that the organic farming requires a higher investment and gives out lower yields in comparison to synthetic farming is flawed for the specified reasons and we need a wider database to make conclusion regarding economic benefits of organic farming.

_________________

Thanks bb, much appreciated