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

The argument claims that farmers switched to invest in organic fertilizers and pesticides from synthetic because synthetic farming was expensive. But now a study shows that organic farming yields low crops, even though organic investment is low compared with that of scientific. The argument states that the switch has been unwise and it was actually a motivation for environment and not for economic concerns. Here, the argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the loss from low crop yields is due to switching from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides. The low crop yield could be due to many reasons and the farming depends on many factors which have not been cited by the author. One reason which could be possible is that the climate when the crops were sown was not perfect for the crops. Some crops require specific kind of climate to grow, and the crops might have been damaged due to the climate, resulting n low yields. Another reason might be poor farming techniques which resulted in low crop yield. Therefore, shifting from synthetic farming to organic farming might not be the reason of low yields.

Secondly, the argument stated that choosing organic farming was unwise in terms of financial investment and states that it was motivated by environment concerns. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument demonstrates an unusual relationship between financial investment and environment concerns. The argument could have been strengthened if the author had given any examples citing the relationship between environment concerns and financial status of the farmer. Without unconvincing answers to the questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author had given any reasons of shifting to organic farming. Without much information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.