The following was excerpted from an article in a farming trade publication:
“Farmers who switched from synthetic to organic farming last year have seen their crop yields decline. Many of these farmers feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point, given the money that they invested in organic farming supplies and equipment. But their investments will be relatively minor compared to the losses from continued lower crop yields. Organic farmers should switch to synthetic farming rather than persist in 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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
This argument concludes that organic farming is not financially viable because the initial investment in organic farming supplies is too great to be worthwhile. However, there are alternative explanations that weaken the conclusion. First, it is possible that the farmers in question have explored alternative farming methods and determined that synthetic farming is the superior choice. Second, it is possible that all of the initial capital invested in organic farming can be recouped through increased sales. Third, it is possible that farmers in marginal regions that lack access to alternative supplies will switch to organic farming simply because it is the only option available to them. Thus, organic farming is not financially unwise, but it may not be the optimal choice for all farmers, and the decision to switch is best suited to the individual farmer. Organic farming has many advantages, but some farmers will switch to synthetic farming in the hope of increased profits. The farmer who purchases organic supplies has made the right decision for the environment. However, it is not necessarily the best choice for him economically
The author is correct about one thing, though: organic farming is not financially viable for all farmers. A farmer who is growing crops on marginal land will have a difficult time recouping his investment in organic fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide. This farmer may be betting the farm on the availability of government subsidies to offset the costs of his organic farming. The farmer who chooses organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may have increased his production costs, but will be reimbursed by the government. However, there is no guarantee that these subsidies will be available. In some regions, the government strictly limits the number of government farm payments. If the subsidies are not available, the farmer may lose money as he attempts to grow crops on marginal land. Alternatively, the subsidies may go to the wealthiest farmers, and the farmer who chooses organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides will lose money even if the subsidies are available
The author could have added that the initial investment in organic farming supplies is trivial compared to the costs involved in switching to synthetic farming. The initial investment may be small, but it can add up over time. If a farmer grows crops that require more fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide than the farmer purchases, he has to purchase more of those items than he originally planned. In addition, some of the organic supplies may be expensive, and the farmer may have to purchase several different supplies. Finally, the farmer may have to purchase equipment that would not have been needed if he had used synthetic farming. For instance, the farmer may have to purchase a machine that allows him to harvest his crops. The farmer may be able to afford to purchase that equipment, but may not have sufficient capital to purchase the additional supplies necessary for organic farming
The farmer who chooses organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may be overlooking alternative farming methods. The farmer may not have realized that his crops need less fertilizer and pesticide when they receive higher amounts of rainfall. Similarly, the farmer may not have realized that his crops need less fertilizer and pesticide when the soil is richer. If his soil is fertile, it does not require as much fertilizer or pesticide as the soil in the marginal regions. The farmer may have chosen organic fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide because he wanted to produce crops in a natural way, but he may have overlooked a less expensive option that would have preserved his investment
The farmer who chooses to use organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may be basing his choice on environmental considerations rather than on economic considerations. Although the farmer may have chosen organic farming for the environment, he may not have considered his financial situation. The farmer may be located in an area that is vulnerable to drought or flood. The farmer may be uncertain whether his region will receive more rain than usual or little rain at all. If his crops fail, he will not be able to recoup his initial investment. In addition, the farmer may have limited financial resources. He may choose to purchase organic supplies because he values the environment, but he may not be able to sustain that choice. Organic farming is not financially unwise, but it may not be the best choice for all farmers
The author makes several assumptions in his argument. First, he assumes that all of the farmers who switched to organic farming did so for environmental reasons. However, some farmers may have chosen organic methods because organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides cost less. In addition, some farmers may have chosen organic methods because they wanted to support local agriculture. Finally, some farmers may have switched from synthetic farming to organic farming because of the lower production costs
The author’s conclusion, organic farming is not financially unwise, but it may not be the best choice for all farmers, is not supported by the evidence presented in the argument. Although a farmer who grows crops on marginal land may have difficulty recouping his initial investment, that farmer did not choose organic farming for this reason. He may have chosen organic farming because that is the best environmental choice, but he may not have considered his financial situation. The farmer who chose organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may have increased his production costs, but he was reimbursed by the government. In addition, some of the organic supplies are expensive, and the farmer may have to purchase several different supplies. In addition, the farmer may have purchased equipment that would not have been needed if he had used synthetic farming. The farmer who chose organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may be overlooking alternative farming methods. The farmer who chooses organic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may be basing his choice on environmental considerations rather than on economic considerations. The author’s conclusions