jokerak wrote:
Prompt:
organically do farming.
'farm organically'
Lacuna = AWESOME WORD!
argument is 'the' absence of detailsIs 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,