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: 473 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-3-2 13:01:51
This argument draws a conclusion that the disaster of pollution and the danger would be met by endangered animal species can be prevented. The arguer claims that the way to prevent the disaster is that consumers refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its plans of mining copper. However, a careful examination of this argument will show how groundless it is.
First of all, the arguer fails to prove that the sake of CCC purchased the land in West Fredonia is to mine copper. Maybe the company purchased the land for settling a place to store its products or to construct a building to sell its products. In this circumstance, whether the environment would be worse is dubious. If the arguer can not provide evidence to show that CCC does plan to mine there, I can not be convinced that the reasoning is rational.
Secondly, even though the company would mine at the land, it is not sure that it would damage the environment. The arguer asserts that mining copper there will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster because there are several endangered animal species in West Fredonia. However, there is no evidence to show that the way CCC mine copper would lead to pollution and that the endangered animal species are in the area which is bought by CCC. If no specie lives there, the damage of the biodiversity would not turn to reality, and if the company uses some new ways to mine copper, maybe the pollution is few.
What is more, even though the disaster would happen, the way to avoid it which is provided by the argument is not rational. The arguer concludes that if the consumers refuse to purchase products which are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans, the disaster can be prevented. Nevertheless, the arguer does not show that there are no other mining copper companies there. Maybe there are another companies and their copper is also used to make products. In this situation, although consumers buy other companies' products, it is possible these products are partly made with the other companies' copper, and the process to produce the copper also harm the area whose environment should be protected. In addition, even though CCC abandons its mining plans, if other companies still mine copper, the disaster would also happen.
In sum, the argument is full of flaws and is lack of logical reasoning. To improve it, the arguer should provide evidence to show that CCC purchased the land for mining copper and the way it mine copper would cause pollution. Moreover, the arguer should also prove that the endangered animal species live in the area and there is no other companies settle there, otherwise the way to protect the area's environment would be useless.