Arguement141=美丽G程小组=小组第十二次作业 by Melody

claire530UID: 2363559

141.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."

字数：448  

In this argument, basing on the premise cited above which indicates that the CCC mining copper on the one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia would inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, the author made the conclusion that if the consumers refuse to purchase products of CCC’s would be of help to prevent the environmental disaster. It seems reasonable at the first glance, whereas in deeply analysis, the argument reveals several logical fallacies as discussed as follows.

For one thing, I consider the assertion made by the author that the CCC mining copper on this area would cause environmental disaster is unwarranted for the lack of evidence. Since author had not offered us the persuasive research material and data to prove the assertion’s authenticity, the article failed to account for the explanation of this argument. Without full evidence, we could not simply make the conclusion that mining copper in this area is harmful for the ecological environment. Moreover, possibility exists that mining the copper in this area would improve the soil conditions thus do good to the environment.
Besides, granted that the CCC would do harm to the environment, given that the CCC’s products, the copper, are hard to be distinguished from other companies’ products by the consumers, it is entirely possible that consumers made the wrong choices that what they refuse to purchase is not CCC’s products thus result in much more serious problems, for example, the economic depression of the whole area, accompanied by the unsolved environmental problem.
Moreover, assuming consumers were able to distinguish CCC’s problems and their group boycotts turned out to be successful, the company was able to change its points of sales to other places and if that occasion happened, the environmental conditions of this area would never be improved.
Finally, on the assumption that the eradication plan of the CCC worked well, and the company had not mined copper in this area anymore, it does not mean that there would be no other company would take over this business anymore. After all, the abundance of copper in the area is full of attraction to the businessmen.
In sum, the argument is logically fallacious and therefore unconvincing as it stands. In order to make it more persuasive, the author should offer more materials and information to prove his assertion that mining copper there would result in environmental disasters. Meanwhile, a more detailed and reasonable plan for prevent the pollution is needed rather than the one simply calls for the consumers to boycott the company’s products which turned out to be less functional. Only informs us full evidence could make a better evaluation of this argument.