2. Spriggs examines quite a few counter-arguments besides her own, and refutes them with examples and data.
The first argument is that some places grow certain foods better than others, which is true. To be able to buy local, then, we'd have to grow all the foods everywhere. You either have to give up eating that particular food during that time or focus on buying locally as much as you are able.
The second argument is that small farms aren't as efficient as large farms, so buying local can be bad for the environment. This actually depends on how you measure efficiency. Spriggs says "Small farms are less efficient than large farms in the total output of on crop per acre, but they are more efficient in total output of all crops per acre." This is in part due to the fact that most small farmers work with many different crops instead of one.
There are other arguments on the global effects and local effects of the economy, but Spriggs talks about the actual benefits that buying local will bring.
3. A section of Sprigg's essay I found ineffective was when she was talking about global effects of buying local. She agrees that "Repercussions on the global market seem unavoidable." Her strongest point on that to me was "The people of the United states could demonstrate to the world our commitment to environmentalism." That's it? To me this is not effective because it doesn't have good reasons or really respond to the problem.
4. Sprigg's photos contribute to her argument by giving the reader strong visuals. With terms like monoculture and polyculture farms, her pictures allow you to better understand what she is explaining. Just reading her points under the pictures allow you to make associations that help you remember it better.
No comments:
Post a Comment