The following was excerpted from the speech of a spokesperson for Synthetic Farm Products， Inc. “Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence their purchase of organic farming equipment， a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields， cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise， given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.” Discuss how well reasoned.。. etc.
This speaker argues that farmers who invested in organic farming equipment should resume synthetic farming because it is financially unwise to continue organic farming. The speaker cites studies showing that farmers who switched to organic farming last year had tower crop yields. Based on these studies， the speaker concludes that the relatively inexpensive investment in organic farming equipment cannot justify continuing to farm organically. The speaker also claims that continuing to farm organically is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental， not economic， concerns. The argument suffers from three problems.
One problem with this reasoning involves the vague comparative claim that farmers who switched to organic farming last year had lower crop yields. We are not informed whether the survey compared last year’s organic crop yields with yields from previous years or with those from synthetic farms. Moreover， the author provides no evidence about how the survey was conducted. Lacking more information about the survey， we cannot accept the speaker’s conclusion.
Secondly， the speaker assumes that the low crop yields for first-time organic farmers last year are representative of crop yields for organic farmers overall. However， more experienced organic farmers might have had much better crop yields last year. Also， the first-time organic farmers might improve their own crop yields in future years. Moreover， last year’s yield may have been unusually low due to poor weather or other factors， and thus not indicative of future yields.
Finally， in asserting that organic farming is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental instead of economic concerns， the speaker unfairly assumes that a practice cannot be both environmentally and economically beneficial. It is possible that， in the long run， practices that help protect the environment will also result in greater economic benefits. For instance， organic farming methods may better protect soil from depletion of the elements that contribute to healthy crops， providing an economic benefit in the long run.
In conclusion， the speaker’s argu
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper. “Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However， commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there， it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.” Discuss how well reasoned.。. etc.
The author concludes that the local transit company must either reduce fares for the shuttle buses that transport people to their subway stations or increase parking fees at the stations. The reasons offered to support this conclusion are that commuter use of the subway train is exceeding the transit company’s expectations， while commuter use of the shuffle buses is below projected volume. This argument is unconvincing because the author oversimplifies the problem and its solutions in a number of ways.
To begin with， by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle fares or increase parking fees， the author assumes that these are the only available solutions to the problem of limited shuttle use. However， it is possible that other factors—such as inconvenient shuttle routing and/or scheduling， safety concerns， or an increase in carpools—contribute to the problem. If so， adjusting fares or parking fees would might not solve the problem.
In addition， the author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking fees are mutually exclusive alternatives. However， the author provides no reason for imposing an either/or choice. Adjusting both shuttle fares and parking fees might produce better results. Moreover， if the author is wrong in the assumption that parking fees and shuttle fees are the only possible causes of the problem， then the most effective solution might include a complex of policy changes—for example， in shuttle fares， parking fees， rerouting， and rescheduling.
In conclusion， this argument is weak because the author oversimplifies both the problem and its possible solutions. To strengthen the argument the author must examine all factors that might account for the shuttle’s unpopularity. Additionally， the author should consider all possible solutions to determine which combination would bring about the greatest increase in shuttle use.
ment is poorly supported and is short-sighted. To better evalute the argument， we would need more information about the how the survey was conducted， especially about the comparison the survey makes. To strengthen the argument， the speaker must present evidence that last years’ crop yields from first-time organic farmers are representative of yields among organic farms in general. The author must also provide evidence that environmentally sound practices cannot be economically beneficial as well.
