Hi,

this is a follow up to my Analysis of an issue.

Once again, first attempt and under timed conditions.

let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Chris

Analysis of an argument.

"It is a popular myth that consumers are really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. Granted, consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Yet agricultural technology is credited with having made our lives better.

This argument is flawed because it is justified upon a misinformed understanding of economic principal. It does not consider the impact of rising incomes on food prices. Nor does it address the supposed benefits that agricultural technology is credited with in an attempt to refute them. However, the most critical is that it does not address the components of the "myth" that it opposes.

The foundation upon which the argument rests is not sound, as the statement does not address the agricultural technology that is credited with having increased living standards. Without refuting the evidence or claims this argument is unable to prove conclusively that the "popular myth" is indeed myth. However, it is possible to show that the evidence used by the argument can be undermined.

The argument is based upon the fact that consumer incomes have increased and the proportion of income spent on food production is reduced. In the process of writing it was assumed that although demand does not increase, food prices have not changed. However, this claim is not substantiated with evidence and is merely alluded to. Subsequently without proof otherwise, it is prudent to assume that the principles of inflation apply. The argument has not considered this. With a rise in real income comes an increase in the buying capacity of a population. If food production was stagnant, the rise in income would result in a rise in price.

The argument states that spending proportions of income on food has decreased. The only logical explanation for this is an increase in supply meaning more is available to go round. This is the likely cause of a reduction in the percentage of income spent on food. Without evidence to support attributing cause to such phenomena, it is prudent to generalise. Since agricultural technology is credited with having made consumers lives better, it is likely that there is some evidence to support this attribution. As previously mentioned the possible evidence has not been addressed. However, an example of evidence that counters the argument is the technology of Genetically Modified Food (GMF): with refinement of plants genetics higher crop yields are possible, thus giving causation for the disputed claim of agricultural technology benefitting a population. Many other alternatives are possible.

It is clear that this argument is based upon misinformed views and is not valid due to it not addressing the supposed "myth,". Without having considered these options the credibility is undermined and has no solid ground upon which to stand.
However, the argument states that spending proportions of income on food has decreased. The only logical explanation for this is an increase in supply meaning more is available to go round. This is the likely cause of a reduction in the percentage of income spent on food.
Without evidence to support attributing cause to such phenomena, it is prudent to generalise. Since agricultural technology is credited with having made consumers lives better, it is likely that there is some evidence to support this attribution. One possible technology is Genetically Modified Food (GMF), with a refinement in plants genetics higher crop yields are possible, thus giving causation for the disputed claim. Many other alternatives are possible.

It is clear that this argument is based upon misinformed views and is not valid due to it not addressing the supposed "myth,". Without having considered these options the credibility is undermined and has no solid ground upon which to stand.