argument 141 第二次写第一次发！求拍砖！！
TOPIC: ARGUMENT141 - The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally."Over the past year, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans."
WORDS: 502 TIME: 00:47:14 DATE: 2012/7/24 13:50:33
In this argument, the author recommends that consumers simply refuse to purchase products made with CCC's copper in order to prevent the environmental disaster. To support the recommendation, the author explain that CCC has recently purchased a large square of land, where live several kinds of endangered animals, mining copper which would lead to environmental disaster and the protest of purchasing products made by CCC's copper would cause the abandon of its mining plan so that the environment could be saved. At first glance, the recommendation could be reasonable. However, close scrutiny of this evidence reveals several logic flaws and the argument is therefore unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the author made the recommendation based on the assumption that CCC's purchase activity can inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster. Nevertheless, there is no warranted evidence substantiates the assumption. Maybe, CCC would utilize the land to build a natural resort instead of to mine copper. Or perhaps, the manager of the company is an ecological protector who steadfastly keeps a humble attitude toward the environment so that the mining process would be an environmental friendly one. With these possibilities, the author cannot simply jump to the conclusion that CCC's purchasing land would do harm to the local environment.
In addition, even assuming that CCC's action would surely ruin the local environment and cause the extinction of several endangered species, the author could not hastily assume that the simply action of refusing to buy the products made with CCC's copper could help reduce the damage. Odds are good that CCC has a long term contract concerning copper with some other big companies which cannot be abrogated, or otherwise the both sides would suffer a serious financial crisis. Also, maybe CCC's copper is used to build national project which made CCC a stable company unlikely to abandon its mining plans. Not accounting for these possible scenarios, I am not convinced of author's recommendation.
Finally, even assuming that the refusal to purchase products made with CCC's copper can lead to the renouncement of mining. With the possibilities stated above, the author cannot assure that other company would not resist the impact and take over the land and then continue to mine. And even though the protest would soundly reduce the environmental impact conduct by mining companies, there is no assurance that other industry would not impale local environment. Therefore the author cannot justifiably claim the simple act of refusal of purchasing could make a difference.
To sum up, the recommendation of refusing to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper in order to save the environment is fallible. To convince me of the recommendation, the author must give reasonable evidence that the CCC's purchase could surely ruin the environment. And, the protest action could actually lead to the abandon of mining and hence protect the environment. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know the use of the purchased land as well as the impact consumers would bring to the mining companies through protest.
第二次写，第一次写已经久到不记得什么时候了，所以这篇相当于第一次写，用了近50分钟，上面发的是我放在word里修改过的，没有语法和拼写错误。请大家尽管拍砖！！！小生不胜感激！！！
另外我10月份考试 现在全天复习，共同进步请加qq 444766413 注明gre备考！！
页:
[1]