AWA Evaluation Request
bb Sajjad1994Hello, I have my GMAT in a couple of days, please could you evaluate the below essay:
The spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products has asserted that the choice to farm organically is “financially unwise”. Furthermore, the spokesperson has also laid out a justification as to why for the farmers who have made a switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides it is “unwise” to continue doing organic farming. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and hence the argument as it currently stands is weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily points out that for the farmers who switched to organic farming last year the current crop yields are lower. Albeit, it doesn’t give us context around the crop yields for the farmers that didn’t shift to organic from synthetic. It is possible that all the farmers faced lower current crop yields, related to external factors other than the fertilizers and pesticides used. So, in the absence of this information around the crop yields for the wider group of farmers, it is unfair to draw a conclusion. Furthermore, it is possible that the farmers who shifted to organic last year were not able to benefit from the actual crop yields that they can enjoy, given they were in the early days of their transition.
Second, the argument goes on to justify that the investment made on the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides, was “relatively minor” vs. the losses that could result from continued lower crop yields. Apart from making an assumption on continued lower crop yields without justification, the argument also fails to consider the possibility that the lower crop yield could actually be offset by something else when using organic fertilizers and pesticides. It directly correlates lower crop yield to losses but it is possible that the operating expenses around fertilizers and pesticides are now reduced by making this switch and that compensates for the lower yield.
Finally, the spokesperson jumps to the conclusion that farming organically is financially unwise given that it is motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns. By doing so the spokesperson takes for granted that decisions taken for environmental concerns can’t be economically beneficial too. This seems like a far stretch, as it is possible that the farmers who shifted to organic fertilizers and pesticides, did so not just as they were environmentally viable options but because they held financial benefits for them too.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed, and the conclusion drawn is unjustified based on the above reasons. The spokesperson makes some interesting points but fails to tie all the ends together and by doing so leaves many questions unanswered around the basis of the conclusions drawn. In order to assess the validity of the argument it will be useful to have information around the current crop yields of the farmers still using synthetic fertilizers; and the financial implications around making the shift from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides.