The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a popular science and
technology magazine.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The conclusion of the argument that agricultural technology has not contributed in making our lives better is unsubstantiated and ill-reasoned. The argument omits various key factors on basis of which it could be evaluated. Therefore, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that as real income rises, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income of food. However, the argument provides no concrete evidence for this to be true. For example, Real income is the income adjusted after inflation and other deductibles. And it could be that the wages and salaries of workers and employees are rising but when they are adjusted after inflation and other deductibles, the real income may have actually decreased, instead of increasing and hence, consumers are spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Without any clarity on real income, the argument is not convincing.
Second, the argument concludes that consumers haven't really benefited from agricultural technology. This conclusion rests on a fact that since demand has not increased in proportion with real income, so advances in agricultural technology have not benefited consumers. Well, it may be true that demand has not increased but concluding that agriculture technology has not made our lives better conveys a distorted view of situation. For instance, advances in agriculture have given consumers better quality of food and availability of food at lower prices. The argument neglects these factors and does not depict a clear picture. In fact, advances in agriculture have contributed in making our lives better. Thus, as argument remains silent on these factors, the correlation between advances in agriculture and their impact on people's lives is difficult to demonstrate.
In conclusion, the argument without any substantial evidence and several key factors is flawed. In order to access the situation, all the relevant facts and full knowledge of the situation is required, but in this case the argument, as such is unconvincing and confusing for the reader.
technology magazine.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The conclusion of the argument that agricultural technology has not contributed in making our lives better is unsubstantiated and ill-reasoned. The argument omits various key factors on basis of which it could be evaluated. Therefore, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that as real income rises, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income of food. However, the argument provides no concrete evidence for this to be true. For example, Real income is the income adjusted after inflation and other deductibles. And it could be that the wages and salaries of workers and employees are rising but when they are adjusted after inflation and other deductibles, the real income may have actually decreased, instead of increasing and hence, consumers are spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Without any clarity on real income, the argument is not convincing.
Second, the argument concludes that consumers haven't really benefited from agricultural technology. This conclusion rests on a fact that since demand has not increased in proportion with real income, so advances in agricultural technology have not benefited consumers. Well, it may be true that demand has not increased but concluding that agriculture technology has not made our lives better conveys a distorted view of situation. For instance, advances in agriculture have given consumers better quality of food and availability of food at lower prices. The argument neglects these factors and does not depict a clear picture. In fact, advances in agriculture have contributed in making our lives better. Thus, as argument remains silent on these factors, the correlation between advances in agriculture and their impact on people's lives is difficult to demonstrate.
In conclusion, the argument without any substantial evidence and several key factors is flawed. In order to access the situation, all the relevant facts and full knowledge of the situation is required, but in this case the argument, as such is unconvincing and confusing for the reader.
