求修改作文argument

tuyixuan1990

题目：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.       我的作文：
      In this speech,the spokesperson concludes that farmers who purchase of organic farming equipment cannot justify on an persisting on an unwise course.To support this assertion,the spokesperson state that last year farmers who switched to organic farming get a lower crop yield comparative.Besides,spokesperson also point out that environmentally and economically cannot both benefit.whereas,I find this speech problematic in several respects.
     To begin with,the spokesperson claims that farmers who switched to organic farming last year get a lower crop yield.While this subsequence cannot support the spokesperson's standpoint .No more evidence can be provided to prove that they will get the same result in a longer time.Possibility,the lower crop yield last year is a temporary phenomenon,perhaps farmers will get a good harvest in second year.Without a detailed analysis of the reasons this switched result lower crop yield,it would be unreasonable to ascribe the result to farmers who switched to organic farming.

     Secondly,lacking of information about the studies,it is imprudent to conclude that switched to organic will cause the lower crop yield.I will still suspect until more sufficient evidence can provide to support the studies.Probable,the studies is limited in a small region only a few farmers are been investigate,if it was true,the consequence of the studies is dubious and biased.Only the speech can offer a representative studies,what the spokesperson says is dubious.
     Last but not least,the speech unfairly to assumes that a practice can not be both environmentally and economically beneficial.However the speech provides no evidence to support this critical assumptions.Perhaps farmers switch to organic farming will lead a harvest than ever before,so farmers will profitable from organic farming finally.Only it the speech build a more strengthen relationship between organic farming and lack of profit,the speech can not convince me that environmentally and economically both exist are unable.
     In a nutshell,the spokesperson is not persuasive because the speech oversimplify the cause--result relationship.To strengthen it,the spokesperson must provide credible evidence that the farmers switch to organic farming will lead lower crop yield.Besides,more detail information about how the studies conducts should be given.