29.       
　　This speaker argues that farmers who invested in organic farming equipment should resume synthetic¹ farming because it is financially unwise to continue organic farming. The speaker cites studies showing that farmers who switched to organic farming last year had tower crop yields. Based on these studies, the speaker concludes that the relatively² inexpensive investment in organic farming equipment cannot justify³ continuing to farm organically. The speaker also claims that continuing to farm organically is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental, not economic, concerns. The argument suffers from three problems.

      One problem with this reasoning involves the vague comparative claim that farmers who switched to organic farming fast year had lower crop yields. We are not informed whether the survey compared last year's organic crop yields with yields from previous years or with those from synthetic farms. Moreover, the author provides no evidence about how the survey was conducted. Lacking more information about the survey, we cannot accept the speaker's conclusion.

      Secondly⁴, the speaker assumes that the low crop yields for first-time organic farmers last year are representative of crop yields for organic farmers overall. However, more experienced organic farmers might have had much better crop yields last year. Also, the first-time organic farmers might improve their own crop yields in future years. Moreover, last year's yield may have been unusually low due to poor weather or other factors, and thus not indicative of future yields.

      Finally, in asserting that organic farming is financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental instead of economic concerns, the speaker unfairly assumes that a practice cannot be both environmentally and economically beneficial. It is possible that, in the long run, practices that help protect the environment will also result in greater economic benefits. For instance, organic farming methods may better protect soil from depletion⁵ of the elements that contribute to healthy crops, providing an economic benefit in the long run.

      In conclusion, the speaker's argument is poorly supported and is short-sighted. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the how the survey was conducted, especially about the comparison the survey makes. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must present evidence that last years' crop yields from first-time organic farmers are representative of yields among organic farms in general. The author must also provide evidence that environmentally sound practices cannot be economically beneficial as well.
30.      
　　 In this argument prudent⁶ investors⁷ are advised to stop investing in hotels and invest instead in hospitals and nursing homes. The author cites two related trends—an aging population and a decline in hotel occupancy—as grounds for this advice. To illustrate⁸ these trends, the author refers to another region of the country, where 20 percent of the population is over 65 years old and where occupancy rates in resort hotels have declined significantly during the past six months. This argument is unconvincing in a couple of important respects.

      In the first place, the author provides no evidence to support the claim that the population as a whole is aging and thatthe hotel occupancy rate in general is declining. The example cited, while suggestive of these trends, is insufficient⁹ to warrant their truth because there is no reason to believe that data drawn¹⁰ from this unnamed region is representative of the entire country. For example, if the region from which the data was gathered was Florida, it would clearly be unrepresentative. The reason for this is obvious. Florida is populated by a disproportionate number of retired¹¹ people over 65 years old and is a very popular vacation destination during the winter months. Moreover, resort hotel occupancy in Florida typically declines significantly during the summer months.

      In the second place, the author has provided no evidence to support the claim that the decline in hotel occupancy is related to the aging of the population. The author appears to believe that the decrease in occupancy rates at resort hotels is somehow caused by the increase in the number of people over age 65. However, the example cited by the author establishes only that these two trends are correlated; it does not establish that the decline in hotel occupancy is due to an increase in the number of people over the age of 65.

      In conclusion, the author's investment advice is not based on sound reasoning. To strengthen the conclusion, the author must show that the trends were not restricted to a particular region of the country. The author must also show that the cause of the decline in hotel occupancy is the increase in the number of people over 65.