GRE Essay Topic 772 - The following appeared in a memo from the economic minister of the small country Paucia. "Using a newly developed variety of seed, farmers in our neighboring country Abundia produced 80 percent more rice last year than in any previous year. To increase the income of farmers in our own country, we should encourage them to cultivate this new variety of rice rather than some of their traditional crops. Such high yields of rice will also improve our country's balance of trade by enabling us to begin exporting it. " Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Palea and Lethos
The author argues that so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean, which seems to be logical at the first glance, but is not persuausive, because of suffering from some flaws that follows. It is not indicated that river whether or not have had the same depth at that time, or there have been other ways of connection between the two villages or not, and also not finding the boats cannot prove that the villages have not been connected by boats. In the following I will further explain to shed more light on various aspects of the topic.
First, the writer mentions that the Brim river is too deep and broad, and so the Paleans could have crossed it just by boats. This assumption is faulty, because maybe the river has not been that much deep at that time, so that people could have crossed the river by walking. So we need evidenvce about the depth of the river at that time. If the river has not been deep, then maybe they had been able to cross that by walking, but if the river have had so deep, the argument can be strengthened, however not fully proved.
In addition, the author does not mention that if there has been another way of crossing the river or not. We need to know if there has been a bridge or another way to reach the Lithos. If it is proved that there has been a probability of reaching Lithos by bridging the two villages or by using ways other than crossing the river, the argument can be weakened, but if enough evidence is provided for proving that there has not been any other way but the river, the argument can be strengthened, yet not fully proved.
The writer assumes that not finding the boats in Palea can account for no connection by boats. This assumption is wrong, because maybe the people of Lethos have had the boats to cross the river, or even some people of other regions have done it as a commercial activity. Furthermore, the writer has not said that Palean people have not built any boat, and just stated that no boat has been found. If there would be some evidences about the presence of boats in Lethos, or some traders, the argument will be weakened, but if it can be proved that people of Palea and Lethos could not build boats, and there has not been any trader using the boats to connect the two villages, the argument can be more strengthened.
The writer can provide more information about the depth of river at that time, or the presence of other ways of reaching the village of Lethos, such as bridge, and also about boats in the Lethos or other people around that region. As it stands, however, the argument is implausible due to the reasons aforementioned.