Farmers within a country are often protected by tariffs - that is, special taxes on imported food. Such policies are necessary, and should be implemented wherever possible.
To what extent do you agree with this?
My own country, Australia, has a long and rich agricultural history, and in that time, fairly stringent ‘tariff walls’ were often erected* to protect local industry and domestic food production. Whilst they are politically appealing, I nevertheless hold the view that such systems are unnecessary and ill-advised.
My main objection is that tariffs foster inefficient and uncompetitive farming practices, which are ultimately unsustainable. When farmers can rest complacently* in the assurance that foreign foodstuffs are excluded from the market, they have no incentive to streamline their own production. This inevitably leads to a bloated* and sluggish* industry, lagging behind other countries. A prime example is the heavily subsidised* British coalmining industry of the mid-1980s. Despite great public turmoil, this was eventually rationalised* by the then Prime Minister, Thatcher, in a bitter campaign, but one which history has long since vindicated.*
Another reason against agricultural tariffs is their unfairness to consumers, who must indirectly pay for this system. Tariffs are governmental decisions, usually in response to lobby* groups with political clout.* Yet farmers are not a privileged* breed, and however much their industry might resonate* with culture, history, or heritage,* they should be as much at the mercy of market forces as others. If Brazilian oranges, for example, can be purchased more cheaply, shoppers have the right to this access,* and prohibiting this is just blatantly* undemocratic.
Farmers, in particular, would argue that tariffs make local production viable, thus guaranteeing food security in unstable times. However, this argument is glib* and unconvincing. In a globalised world, gridded with efficient networks of trade and transportation, nations with paying markets can always secure* commodities from others, irrespective* of distance. My wife, for example, has purchased cherries from Chile, and online at that; the goods find their way to reach us with a mouse-click’s convenience, which illustrates a reality that all, including farmers, must accept.
For all these reasons, the agricultural industry should not be benefited by tariffs.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-24 | Muhammed_10 | 61 | view |
| 2019-01-15 | prabhpreet | 89 | view |
- Farmers within a country are often protected by tariffs - that is, special taxes on imported food. Such policies are necessary, and should be implemented wherever possible.To what extent do you agree with this? 89
- Action movies with spectacular car chases are very popular with young people. It is often said that these sorts of movies lead to an increase in car accidents among young drivers as they try to copy what they have seen in films . Do you agree that such mo 73
- Health experts say that obese women and women over the age of 40 should not be given free fertility treatment (IVF) because they are more likely to experience health problems.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view? 73
- The charts A and B show the share of the UK and Australian cinema market in 2001 and cinema admission in the UK and Australia from 1976 to 2006 92
- As countries have developed there has been a trend towards family sizes. Why does this happen? How does this affect society? 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 339, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , *
...nate* with culture, history, or heritage,* they should be as much at the mercy of ...
^^
Line 3, column 510, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , *
..., shoppers have the right to this access,* and prohibiting this is just blatantly*...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, thus, for example, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1894.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 324.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84567901235 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22073188182 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.657407407407 0.561755894193 117% => OK
syllable_count: 568.8 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.4394634553 49.4020404114 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.285714286 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 7.06120827912 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150386000724 0.244688304435 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0463830547305 0.084324248473 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0270494187971 0.0667982634062 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0801476171035 0.151304729494 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0288771905092 0.056905535591 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.0946893788 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.95 12.4159519038 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.63 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 78.4519038076 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.