The reading passage contends that the US United States government ought to give continually subsidies to farmers. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this statement.
First of all, the speaker argues that subsidies cannot ensure the stability of overall food supply. In fact, the US United States government already implemented to apply large amount of subsidies to farmers growing corns to get ethanol. However, this method did not add to the total food supply. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that subsidies secure a stable food supply because they can produce more crops to fill up for crop loss.
In addition, the speaker insists that subsidies cannot cut down the money of lower the price of food. Frankly, (글쓴이의 가치판단을 담지 마세요.) Only farmers growing certain nutritious food such as corn and rice can be subsidized by the government. As a result, people concentrate on only these a few crops and while the small supply of other vegetables and fruits cause the prices to soar. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that using subsidies reduces the money price of food since the costs of farming are offset.
Finally, the lecturer maintains that subsidies do not help the economy in rural areas. Today’s farming is mechanized, so farm owners do not need more labor for cultivating. Also, only the farm owners are able to have merits by utilizing subsidies, while most of the communities in suburbs cannot enjoy any benefits. This refutes the reading passage’s explanation that the use of subsidies enhances the economical conditions in rural regions thanks to by hiring more workers.
Writing 0-30 scale
Good (25-26)
전반적으로 두 지문의 내용을 잘 비교하고 정리했습니다.
일부 표현이 어색해서 본문에 수정했으니 참고하세요. (문법적으로 틀린 내용은 아닙니다.)