The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication. "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 d

This letter concludes that to increase farm revenue this country's farmers should replace their sugar crops with peanuts. To support this assertion, the letter's author claims that demand for sugar is sure to decline due to a growing awareness of the health hazards of eating too much sugar. The author also cites the fact that in the nearby country of Palm increased peanut production has resulted in increased revenue for farmers. However, the author's argument relies on several poor assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

A threshold problem with the letter involves the new research that the author cites to support his conclusion. The author fails to indicate whether consumers are in fact aware of the new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, or whether consumers eat too much sugar in the first place. If consumers are unaware of the research, or if they do not currently eat too much sugar, then this research lends no support to the author's assertion that sugar consumption is likely to decline as a result of the new research.

Secondly, the argument unjustifiably assumes that growing consumer awareness of sugar's health hazards will cause consumers to not only decrease sugar consumption but also increase peanut consumption. Common sense informs me otherwise, especially considering the addictive quality of sugar. In fact, the author provides explicitly that peanuts are low in sugar, suggesting that peanuts are a poor substitute for sugar.

Thirdly, the author's claim that farm revenues will increase should farmers replace sugar crops with peanuts relies on certain dubious economic assumptions. One such assumption is that the market price of peanuts will be sufficiently high to compensate for lost revenue from current sugar sales. Another is that the supply of peanuts will suffice to provide farmers with sufficient revenue. Absent evidence comparing the market price of sugar to that of peanuts, as well as evidence about the capacity of this country's farms to grow peanut crops, it is impossible to assess the author's assertion that replacing sugar crops with peanuts will increase farm revenues.

Finally, the author's reliance on the fact that peanut-farming revenues in neighboring Pain have increased is problematic in two respects. First, the analogy depends on the assumption that dietary tastes of consumers in both countries are similar. However, it is entirely possible that consumer demand for peanuts in Pain would be higher than that in this country in any event. This would explain why, in Palin, demand has met increased production, and therefore why Palin's peanut-farming revenues have increased. The analogy also depends on the assumption that environmental conditions in both countries equally support peanut crops. If they do not, then the author cannot justifiably rely on the profitability of Pain's peanut farms to conclude that peanut farms in the author's country would be just as profitable.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must demonstrate that this country's consumers will in fact decrease their sugar consumption as a result of their growing awareness of its health risks. The author must also provide dear evidence 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. To better evaluate the argument we would need to compare the two countries' climatic and soil conditions; we would also need to compare consumer tastes in Palin with consumer tastes in the author's country.