With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high.

In this argument, the author has claimed that the nationwide demand for sugar will decline due to publicity of health diets and the new research about the harmful effects of sugar. The writer then concludes that farmers in his state should grow peanuts rather than sugar cane. However, this argument is placed on false assumptions and hence, do not convince the readers.

Firstly, need and publicity for a healthy diet or research about the ill effects of sugar do not prove that people of the author’s country eat too much sugar or they do not eat a healthy diet already. There is a possibility that the existing sugar intake of the population is not a problem, therefore there does not need to be a reduction in the amount of sugar eaten. Therefore, with no need to reduce the amount of sugar eaten, demand is unlikely to decline. The author has not produced any support for his conclusion that the demand for sugar is going to decline. There is no direct cause and effect relationship between the demand and the publicity about the need for a healthful diet and / or new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar. It weakens the author’s argument.

Secondly, the author has recommended that farmers in his state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts. However, he has not considered that sugar and peanut are very different crops and might need different types of soil and environmental conditions. He should have demonstrated his statement with evidence that the farmers can actually make this transition. Moreover, it is also not clear that even if consumers will decrease their sugar consumption, they will increase peanut consumption. This is also a wrong assumption as peanuts and sugar are no way substitutes for each other. Even assuming that this state’s population is concerned about a healthful diet or the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, there is no evidence presented for the growing of peanuts instead of sugar.

In the end, the author has mentioned that farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high. Again, the author has assumed many things on his own. He has not compared the soil conditions and climatic factors of the two countries. Moreover, the demand of peanut might be more in Palin. The author has not provided any data that would compare the two countries’ people, their food habits, their climate, soil etc. Anyways, what happened in a country cannot be applied in a neighboring country without any research. Hence, the author cannot justifiably rely on the profitability of Palin’s peanut farms to conclude that peanut farms in the author’s country would be just as profitable.

Hence, the author’s argument is unconvincing. The author should have strengthened his argument with more data and facts. He should have demonstrated that the demand for peanuts and the revenue from peanut production in this country are likely to match the current demand for sugar and farm revenue from sugar production, respectively. In addition, he should have analyzed the consumer tastes, soil, and climatic conditions in his country.