Can someone review my GRE argumentessay please? Thanks in advance :)

[anonk]

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 paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.

 

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

 

The argument is that people in Tagus suffer from a deficiency of vitamin A and thus the Tagus government should provide all means necessary to support a new breed of millet which is high in vitamin A. There are many implicit assumptions made here which renders the argument highly ineffective.

 

First of all, there is no supporting evidence to indubitably prove that the new breed of millet is indeed high in vitamin A and better than the current breeds. There are no facts or figures to demonstrate that the currently available brands of millet are not rich in vitamin A. Even if we are working on the assumption that current breeds have low vitamin content, there is no hard-core proof given to accept that the new breed is better.

 

Secondly, there is no mention of the consequences that this new breed might have. While assuming that the new breed might provide a solution to the vitamin A deficiency, there is no reason to believe that this might not fatal consequence, harmful to say the least. It has not been explicitly cited that the government will take adequate measures to ensure that the new millet is safe for the public. What is the point of being rich in vitamin A if it comes at the cost of depleting other nutrients?

 

Thirdly, although it has been stated that the new breed is higher in cost, it does not mention the percent increase in the rate. It has been stated in the hypothesis that Tagus is an impoverished nation and thus, the success of the higher priced new breed (irrespective of the vitamin contents) needs to be questioned. This further weakens the hypothesis significantly. And though it has been mentioned that the farmers will be granted subsidies for farming this new variety, no facts or figures are provided which makes us question whether the subsidies will be inviting enough for the farmers to attempt to grow the new variety. After all, no one likes change, right? The same question can be extended to another statement in the argument - "Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety". There is no guarantee that people will take a liking to the new breed or if at all, they would be open to trying out the new breed.

 

Last but not the least, though we can infer from the argument that Tagus people are deficient in vitamin A, there is no mention of what actual consequences this causes and whether the new breed would address these issues. In order to promote the new variety, it would be mandatory to have some concrete proof that it is able to "do something" that the old variety was not able to. There is no mention of this in the argument.

 

Without further facts or evidence that the new millet is indeed vitamin-A rich and has only innocuous side-effects if any, it would not be wise of the government to blindly promote the new breed.