[a习作temp] A106 求猛拍（自己感觉写得还不错，所以斗胆放上来） [复制链接]

yeruihuang0008
UID：3002167

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 6
寄托币: 113
注册时间: 2011-2-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-2-16 14:23:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT106 - The following editorial appeared in a newspaper in the country of Solaria.

"The Eliot Valley region was primarily agricultural twenty years ago. In the past twenty years, however, many computer-chip manufacturers have opened factories there. A recent study found that water pollution in the region was worse than in any other region in the country. Moreover, the computer-chip factories, which use large quantities of water to manufacture the chips, are probably responsible for the low levels of water in the region's lakes and reservoirs. Therefore, if the region's computer-chip makers had limits placed on the amount of water they could use, water quality would improve."
WORDS: TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2011/2/16 13:54:14

In the argument above, the author concludes that limits of the amount of water the computer-chip makers could use should be adopted so that the water quality would improve. To support the conclusion, the author points out that the local water pollution was the worst in the country after the opening of the computer-chip factories. And the author assumes that reason of the low levels of water in the local lakes and reservoirs is that the computer-chip factories use large quantities of water. Although the argument seems reasonble, I find it dubious in several aspects.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the computer-chip factories is the reason of the pollution. The author only points out that the opening of the factories and the pollution occured in the same period but no causal relationship is built between the two events. It is probable that it is the farms, local homes or other kinds of manufacturers that cause that pollution. Moreover, the pollution condition of Solaria twenty years ago is unknown so that we could not evaluate whether the current environment in Solaria is better or worse than the situation 20 years ago. Without excluding other influencing factors and lacking the information about the condition 20 years ago, we are not convinced that it is the commputer-chip factories that cause the pollution.

Secondly, no evidence is given to prove that the low levels of water in the local lakes and reservoirs resulted from that the factories used a lot of water. The number of the factories is not provided and it is probable that the amount of water they used is not large enough to cause the low levels of water. Furthermore, natural draughts and agricutural irrigation will also cause low levels of water in the region's water bodies. Therefore, the assumption that the factories are responsible for the low levels of water is unwarranted.

Even assuming that it is the factories that caused the polllution and the low levels of water, the author unfairly assumes that limiting the amount of water the factories could use will improve the water quality. The density of waste will probably increase if the amount of water decrease so that the pollution will be even serious after adopting the limits. On the other hand, methods such as dealing with the waste of the factories or INTRODUCING new technology to dissolve the waste are more effective. Therefore, the assumption that limiting the amount of water use will improve the water quality is unwarranted.

In a word, the argument is weak and unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must prove that the computer-chip factories is the reason of both the local pollution and the low levels of water. To draw a better conclusion, the author also needs to prove that the limits will be effective to improve the water quality.

A106