GMAT Essay Topic 485 - 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.
In the letter to the editor above, the writer claims that the technological advancements in agriculture are overrated and should not be credit with having bettered our lives. He makes this claim on the basis that that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income and therefore ...
This essay has been rated a score of 5. Essays in this score category are paid content. Please Register to gain access to this essay.
Under the same topic
The author through this argument conveys his point that agriculture technology is not helpful for consumer, Moreover the demand of the provision does not increase in proportion with real income, However, due to lack of research, ambiguity in message conveyed and key statistics are either missing or neglected. I distinctly disapprove the opinion expressed. To unwind my argument, I would like to heghlight the key ponits and concerns which must be argument in the following paragraphs.
First of all, the author has made a statement which is lacking with a background, futhermore, there aren't any fact supporting to derive conclusion. The fool items requisite does not depend on fluctuation of real income, owing to fact that the provision is an elementary requirement of people. Even the author does not seem to care to give relative details with which one could compare these decuctions. However, convincing a topic. It has to have conviction, clarity and purpose., which seems to be missing in totally. The author is blissfully ignorant of it.
Evantually, He says that demand of food does not rise in proportion with real income. But no evidence is provided to show that this explanation is correct. Moreover, the author fails to consider other factor that might reason for proportional decrease in spending on food.
Finally, the author fails to provide the evidence that the agriculture technology is credited with having made our lives better. Therefore the argument sounds nothing but vain, shallow and inconsistent.
To sum up my discussion on the argument, I would like to mention that had author instead of this observation given a paradoxial but a better view point, it would have been much more relevant, convincing and flaw proof. It would not have been vulnerable to sach bitter criticism.