[a习作temp] ARGUMENT82[AWER小组] [复制链接]

Betty210
UID: 2398827

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 343
注册时间: 2007-9-12
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-14 11:05:56 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.

"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."
WORDS: 274 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-2-13 23:26:38

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning is quite sound.According to his or her conclusion, people should use charcoal which is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does in order to improve their health and preserve the environment. But unfortunately, if we made a careful consideration about his or her evidence, doubt would be cast on this conclusion.

To begin with, the arguer claims that wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems. However, no evidence is provided to support his or her claim. As we know, a disease would be attributable to many factors, thus the arguer's claim cannot convince me.Even if the wood smoke is responsibility for these ailments the arguer fails to show us that such ailments indeed happen in many countries. Without these evidence, the arguer's proposal seems unjustifiable.

Secondly, the arguer concludes that people can simply shift using in wood to charcoal is unreasonable. On the one hand, as the arguer shows the charcoal costs slightly more than wood, this factor would be not overlooked, if people on average are poor. On the other hand, even if less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat the arguer's suggestion appears unreasonable. Perhaps the additional cost of charcoal offset it saved, or transcended. If these are case the conclusion that adopting charcoal can save money is questionable.

Finally, the arguer hastily concludes that to improve their health and preserve the environment, it is wise for people to use charcoal. Yet there is the scant evidence that only by stopping using wood fuel people’s health and the environment can be improved. It is entirely possible that the reason for these problems is not wood fuel but others. For example, it might that many industries are found recently, it gave out dirty water and noxious odor which endangered people’s health, thereby have a chilling effect on environment. If either is a case, we should not be so sure that these problem would be due to use wood fuel.

After pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say that the conclusion based on several unwarranted assumptions. To strengthen it the arguer must infer us that the new fuel, charcoal,can avoid environmental problems and that it indeed a useful mean of conservation. And more evidence should be provided that people's ailments are a result of using wood fuel.

23：43 finished