一篇AA，请问应该如何反驳

leogm

75. 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.

能否请大家帮忙翻译一下本篇AA，或者解释一下作者的逻辑思路是什么？我读完以后觉得很混乱。

uwaki

我的一点小理解，刚入门GMAT,不知道对不对,我是按照GRE的ARGUMENT来理解的。.

1,它说consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food,这个应该是INSUFFICENT SAMPLE, 题目并没有足够的样本来说明CONSUMERS 花越来越少的钱在食物上

2,还有就是它说花少的钱在食物上就说明了农业科技使得我们的生活越来越好,这个是无因果联系

我觉得这两个应该是主要的攻击点吧,请NN们看一下..

可以说即使比率小了，不代表花在食物上的钱少了，可能是花在其他方面的变多了吧?

rock_ws

1、花在食物上的钱比例减少了，并不等于花在食物上的钱绝对值少了。实际上是赚的多了，文中也提“demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income”说明农产品价格还是涨了，所以农业技术并没有减轻我们在花在食物上的钱的负担。还有相当部分的人没有解决温饱问题嘛。

2. 即使人们花在食物上的钱少了，也一定是因为农业技术降低了成本，可能是人们饮食结构变化，比如减肥啦什么什么的，用他因来解释现象

3.花在食物上的钱少了，并不能得出会过一个better life的结论，这个无因果关系

magicbaby

那我们的AA不就是要维护被作者反驳的观点

magicbaby

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.

所以，农业发展没有给吃饭的人带来经济利益，这个是作者的观点

如何反驳作者观点

1 The author unfairly assumes that the real income rises

2 The argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income.

3 The demand for food can not be equal to the requirement of food quality.