An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p

In order to combat deficiency of vitamin A among impoverished people of Tagus, the government of Tagus should promote new breed of millet, as millet is already staple food in Tagus. Here the author has given several premises to strengthen his or her conclusion. But there several questions, if answered make the flow of argument weak.

Firstly, the author cites that even though seed of new breed of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming it. But, Tagus is a poor country and people of Tagus may be living under destitute. So the question is, are these fiscal help, in terms of subsidies, are sufficient enough for farmers to reap new breed of millet ? If this is not the case, plan of combating deficiency of vitamin A doesn't work out.

Secondly, the problem with utilization of new breed of millet is subjected to Tagus only or farmers are likely to export it to foreign countries in order to get higher profit. Since people are poor, it may be a case that they would get higher prices from foreign makers instead of selling it into the local markets. So the question is, would they sell whatever they produce in Tagus only or foreign markets?

Thirdly, author contends that millet is found in abundance in Tagus so people will readily adopt the new variety. However it is possible that millet does have lower market price compare to other corps. So, poor people of Tagus may adopt another breeds so that they get higher profit in order compensate their poverty. However, it is possible that new breed of millet has noxious effect to land of farming and most the people may fear for reaping it.

In general, it may be said that the author has failed make a convincing recommendation due to lack of proper reasoning. The argument ends with an unrealistic optimistic conclusion based on wishy-washy observations that is likely to be incorrect. However, if the author has answered the above mentioned questions correctly, his or her argument would have been more convincing.