essay - GMAT: Argument 30

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

Answer:
The spokesperson's assertive is twofold. First, he concludes that farmers who have switched from synthetic to organic fertilizers should switch back to synthetic fertilizes, because studies conducted last year show that organic farming is less productive than synthetic farming, and because the loss exceeds the investment that the farmers have done. Second, the spokesperson also concludes that synthetic farming should be chosen if an economical factor is prioritized. His argument has two serious fallacies.

The first fallacy is that although he mentions that current crop yields of farmers performing organic farming are lower than ones of farmers performing synthetic farming, this citation contains a serious error. That is, he says "yields", but the important thing for the argument is how much they earned, say, "money". For instance, if the unit price of the products from organic farming is higher than one from synthetic farming, say, because of consumer's preference, the farmers adapting organic farming may gain much more money than synthetic farmers. Thus, the spokesperson should have mentioned the revenue instead of the amount, if he can use the figure to support his conclusion.

The second fallacy is that he ignores a trend that will occur in the future. I mean, even if organic farming is currently behind synthetic farming in terms of the economical aspect, in the near future might it be the opposite. Today, many consumers become more aware of the environmental aspect, and thereby in the near future synthetic farming would be absolutely unacceptable in terms of both the environmental aspect and the economical aspect. It's because consumers may willingly pay much higher price to organic products. In the case, switching back to synthetic farming would be not only unprofitable but also unreasonable in terms of the probable need to again switch back to organic farming.

In conclusion, although the spokesperson tries to convince the audience to switch back to synthetic farming, seriously wrong argument makes it impossible.