GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十七

　　77. The conclusion of this letter is that consumers are not truly benefiting from

　　advances in agricultural technology. The author concedes that, on the average,

　　consumers are spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But the author

　　contends that this would happen without advances in agricultural technology. The

　　author reasons that demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income, so as

　　real income rises, consumers will spend a decreasing portion of their income on food.

　　This argument turns on a number of dubious assumptions.

　　First of all, while asserting that real incomes are rising, the author provides no

　　evidence to support this assertion; moreover, it might be false. Even if salaries and

　　wages go up, this fact may not indicate that real income has increased proportionally.

　　Real income takes into account any effect inflation might have or, the relative value of

　　the dollar. It is possible that, when salaries and wages are adjusted for inflation, what

　　appear to be increases in real income are actually decreases.

　　In addition, the author assumes that increases in real income explain why, on the

　　average, consumers are now spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food.

　　But no evidence is provided to show that this explanation is correct. Moreover, the

　　author fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for proportional

　　decreases in spending or food.

　　Finally, the entire argument turns on the assumption that benefits to consumers

　　from advances in agricultural technology are all economic ones―specifically, ones

　　reflected in food prices. The author ignores other likely benefits of agricultural

　　technology that affect food prices only indirectly or not at all. Such likely benefits

　　include increased quality of food as it reaches the market and greater availability of

　　basic food items. Moreover, the author cannot adequately assess the benefits of

　　agricultural technology solely on the basis of current food prices because those prices

　　are a function of more than just the technology that brings the food to market.

　　In conclusion, this letter has provided little support for the claim that consumers

　　are not really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. A stronger argument

　　would account for the benefits of technology other than the current price of food, and

　　would account for other factors that affect food prices. To better evaluate the argument,

　　we would need more information about whether real incomes are actually rising and

　　whether this alone explains why consumers now spend a proportionately smaller

　　amount of income on food.