argument10 求改作文，谢谢各位高手！

师走99UID: 2857041

The following appear in a letter to the editor of a Batavia newspaper.
‘’The department of the agriculture in Batavia reports that the number of the dairy farms throughout the country is now 25 percent greater than it was 10 years ago. During the same time period, however, the price of milk at the local Excello Food Market has increased from $1.5 to over $3.0 per gallon. To prevent farmers from continuing to receive excessive profits on an apparently increased supply of milk, the Batavia government should begin to regulate milk prices. Such regulation is necessary to ensure both lower prices and a adequate supply of milk for consumers.’’



In the letter, the author conclude that on account for the extremely high price of milk from which farmers gain great profit, the Batavia government should take part in regulating the milk market to ensure lower price with enough supply of milk. However, the argument relies on a host of unsubstantiated assumption, and is easily arguable.
First of all, the author point out that the total number of dairy farms have risen by 25% than it was 10 years ago all across country, which seems a credible evidence to support the argument. Despite the growing number of dairy farms nationwide, the author failed to prove the same increasing rate of dairy farms in Batavia during the past 10 years. That is to say, the number of dairy farms in Batavia would possibly decrease, which means the less milk supply than it was 10 years ago. If the milk population is doubled or tripled any way, it’s reasonable for the price to rise from $1.50 to $3.00, nor is the claiming that excessive profits gained by the farmers. Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive for a lack of reliable date to support.
Let’s suppose that the increasing rate of dairy farms in Batavia is the same as the rate nationwide. Is the argument substantiated under this additional assumption? Milk price, however, is determined by a series of complex factors. Perhaps the cost of producing milk per gallon has also risen owing to a lack of enough grassland for cow. Perhaps the quality of milk is better than that ten years ago. Perhaps the milk population has risen faster than the number of dairy farm increased, thus cause a relatively short for milk supply. Or Perhaps Batavia is now suffering a severely inflation. All these factors would definitely affect the milk price in Batavia. Hence, the author’s recommendation is illogical without ruling out other alternative factors that behind the milk price.
Even assuming that milk price now is high enough for farmers to receive excessive profits. But is it possible for the government to lower the milk price without reducing the supply of milk? In the other words, the government could not guarantee the adequate milk supply while lowering the milk price at the same time. The price is mainly determined by the relationship between supply and needs. The regulation would break the balanced of milk market. Many farmers would change their career to other more profitable fields, which would possibly lead to a great decline of milk supply. What’s worse, the milk industry may suffer a great crisis, which could have influence on other related industry. Once happened, the government will face a serious loss. In short, without ruling out this possible situation the regulation would bring about, the recommendation is still unpersuasive.
In conclusion, the recommendation of lowering the milk price without affecting the milk supply is unconvinced. If the author wants to persuade me, he should provide some clearer evidence included: the exact data of dairy farms increased in Batavia during past ten years; the exact data of milk supply and milk price changed in Batavia during past ten years; the cost of producing milk per gallon and the economic condition of Batavia now.