Please rate my essay, I wasn't sure if anything needed specific work. All criticism would be greatly appreciated.
The country of Sacchar can best solve its trade deficit problem by lowering the price of sugar, its primary export. Such an action would make Sacchar better able to compete for markets with other sugar-exporting countries. The sale of Sacchar's sugar abroad would increase, and this increase would substantially reduce Sacchar's trade deficit.
My Answer:
Trade is a valuable source of income and revenue for any country. A trade deficit can lead to a deficit in the treasury or in the GDP. There are many sources that may cause a trade deficit. However, the assumption made by the author "The country of Sacchar can best solve its current trafe deficit..." is unbased and flawed. It is not possible to take the comment at face value without any supporting examples or facts. There are many outside elements to this argument that we must take into consideration.
For example, the author assumes that the price of sugar is the main cause of the trade deficit. There is no fact stating whether the price of sugar has increased over the years or not. It also does not state any fact to show that the increase in price has caused the trade of sugar to go down. The trade deficit might not be caused by the price of sugar at all. It could be caused by other elements completely. What if the country was in a state of civil war? This would cause traders to look at the country's safety first before they decide to trade. With pirates already sailing the ocean, trades are already vulnerable to theft or destruction. Why would they wish to take more risk by trading with an unstable regime?
A second flaw within the author's argument is the idea that by lowering the price of sugar the trade of sugar will go up. What if the trade of sugar is already the highest its ever been? If trade in sugar is already at its highest, there would be no sense of lowering the price. In this case, there would even be a possiblity that the lowering of sugar price would cause the trade deficit to become even lower. This is based of the basic principle of supply and demand where max profit comes from the equilibrium of supply and demand. It is not to say that the idea is not valid. The principle behind the idea can be justified. If only there was proof to show that the price of sugar is higher in Sacchar versus other countries. It would be even more clear if there was information stating that the trade of sugar has gone down over the past few years due to an increase in pricing. In this situation, by lowering the prices it is obvious that the trade would soar and the problem of the trade deficit can be solved.
The author has made an assumption without any supporting examples. It would be difficult to persuade any reader with such a flawed argument. By giving more examples the author can lead the reader to the same assumption that is given in the argument. Without any facts though it would be impossible for the reader to come to the same conclusion.
The country of Sacchar can best solve its trade deficit problem by lowering the price of sugar, its primary export. Such an action would make Sacchar better able to compete for markets with other sugar-exporting countries. The sale of Sacchar's sugar abroad would increase, and this increase would substantially reduce Sacchar's trade deficit.
My Answer:
Trade is a valuable source of income and revenue for any country. A trade deficit can lead to a deficit in the treasury or in the GDP. There are many sources that may cause a trade deficit. However, the assumption made by the author "The country of Sacchar can best solve its current trafe deficit..." is unbased and flawed. It is not possible to take the comment at face value without any supporting examples or facts. There are many outside elements to this argument that we must take into consideration.
For example, the author assumes that the price of sugar is the main cause of the trade deficit. There is no fact stating whether the price of sugar has increased over the years or not. It also does not state any fact to show that the increase in price has caused the trade of sugar to go down. The trade deficit might not be caused by the price of sugar at all. It could be caused by other elements completely. What if the country was in a state of civil war? This would cause traders to look at the country's safety first before they decide to trade. With pirates already sailing the ocean, trades are already vulnerable to theft or destruction. Why would they wish to take more risk by trading with an unstable regime?
A second flaw within the author's argument is the idea that by lowering the price of sugar the trade of sugar will go up. What if the trade of sugar is already the highest its ever been? If trade in sugar is already at its highest, there would be no sense of lowering the price. In this case, there would even be a possiblity that the lowering of sugar price would cause the trade deficit to become even lower. This is based of the basic principle of supply and demand where max profit comes from the equilibrium of supply and demand. It is not to say that the idea is not valid. The principle behind the idea can be justified. If only there was proof to show that the price of sugar is higher in Sacchar versus other countries. It would be even more clear if there was information stating that the trade of sugar has gone down over the past few years due to an increase in pricing. In this situation, by lowering the prices it is obvious that the trade would soar and the problem of the trade deficit can be solved.
The author has made an assumption without any supporting examples. It would be difficult to persuade any reader with such a flawed argument. By giving more examples the author can lead the reader to the same assumption that is given in the argument. Without any facts though it would be impossible for the reader to come to the same conclusion.
