ARGUMENT141=美丽G程小组=小组第12次作业 BY petric

petricUID: 2719885

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."

去年，Consolidated Copper Company(CCC)在热带国家West Fredonia购买了上百万平方英里的土地。在这些地方采矿将会不可避免地导致污染和环境灾害，因为West Fredonia是很多濒危物种的栖居地。但如果消费者简单地拒绝购买用CCC所生产的铜而制造的产品，直到CCC放弃它的采矿计划就可以避免这种灾害。

在W买地-（W有珍惜物种）-导致污染和环境问题（前提：1.那块土地有那些生物2.会有环境灾难：发展是必须的，C也许可以使破坏降低到最小，同时有补救措施那么开采不一定是坏事）
不买CCC铜制得的产品-就不会有灾难（前提：1.消费者能辨认哪些产品由CCC铜制得；2.如果不买C 就能停止开采-----1.市场供求能否对C有影响，产生的效果，消费群体问题 2已经造成破坏灾难还是无法避免---需要其他方式）

Grounding on the fact that Consolidated Copper Company(CCC) purchased land in West Fredonia, where inhabit endangered animals, the author accordingly suggests consumers boycott products made with CCC's copper, in order to avoid environmental disaster. However, this argument is in fact logically flawed in the following three main aspects.

To begin with, the author assumes that purchasing land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster. Yet, the intension of buying this land is unclear- if a large portion of areas is sponsored to set wild life reserve in this tropical nation by CCC, while CCC endeavored to minimize the negative effects caused by mining through high-tech, the author should weigh the benefits over the disadvantages appropriately. For that matter, whether endangered animal species live in the mining areas is doubtful. In common sense, plants with scarce kinds hardly grow exuberantly in heavy metal ore deposits. Accordingly, lack in biologic chain and species, animals might not live in the land bought by CCC, then this mining activity will not endanger these species, not alone result in environmental disasters if CCC’s manufacturing tech and preventive action for pollution is advanced enough.

Even if potential pollution and environmental problems will be like a bomb to bring disasters, boycott purchasing products that are made with CCC's copper is ineffective to resolve the threat. First, it is unrealistic for customers to recognize where the raw material come from, whether the copper is made from CCC. Secondly, whether this boycott will have effect on CCC's plans is open to doubt. We are not informed how many customers will follow this proposal, and whether these people are main financial resources for CCC, since manufacturing and distributing is global, besides supply and demand depends on costs and the quality of products, which are difficult manipulated by advocates. Perhaps CCC's copper is applied for facilities in factories abroad, not for individual use. Without considering and ruling out these issues, the author cannot make any sound recommendations to the public.

Finally, even though most customers are inclined to cooperate, the author hastily assumes that only by boycott can pollution and environmental disaster be sufficiently prevented. How long will this boycott have effect on demand in market is ignored. When CCC is forced to abandon mining plans in this tropical nation, it might be too late to stop pollutions and negative consequences that have been brought by mining. Other methods accordingly should be taken to prevent the harmful result such as more financial and political pressures from the public, and compensation methods should be adopted in details to prevent further pollution and so on.

In sum, the argument relies on certain problematic assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive and take every possible consideration into account.