ARGU 141 抵制开铜矿保护生态，求拍，有拍必回~

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

这次在30分钟内刚好写完。。。汗。。。

ARGUMENT 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."

In this argument, the author suggests that in order to avoid pollution an d environmental disaster from CCC's mining plans, a boycott should be taken out in West Fredonia. To support this suggestion, the author provides the fact that CCC purchased one million square miles of land in West Fredonia and that several endangered animal species inhabit in this country. However, the argument relies on several unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the newsletter excerpt did not mention that the land purchased by CCC located in the inhabitant of those endangered animal species. If the land is far away from that inhabitant, CCC's mining plan will not threaten the living of endangered species, even if the mining activity does cause pollutions.

Secondly, the author did not clearly define the word "environmental disaster". If species distinction equals environmental disaster, then the claim would have merit; otherwise, it would not. Under the second definition, even if the mining activity results in distinction, environment disaster still won't happen.

Thirdly, the author provides little evidence to support that the CCC's mining plan will inevitably cause pollution and environmental disaster. If we cannot exclude the possibility that CCC applies latest technology to lessen the pollution result from mining, we can not simply conclude that mining copper on this land will pollute the environment.

Finally, even if the mining activity does pollute the environment and would result in disaster, whether the author's suggestion is a good measure is still doubtful. Many other methods can also mitigate the pollution in mining activity. For instance, government can limit the amount of pollutants, use taxations, or force the company to adopt pollution-preventing mining methods. If the feasibility of these methods can not be denied, we can not agree with the suggestion of simple boycott.

In sum, the suggestion would be more reliable if the author provides evidence on the location of land purchased by CCC and gives clear definition of "environmental disaster". More supporting information of whether CCC's mining activity causes pollution would also be useful.  Meanwhile, the boycott method is more acceptable when the author excludes the alternative methods that could prevent pollution and environmental disaster.

adcolorsUID: 2256933

It looks great!

A very good piece of writing, at least in my point of view. Both writing and organization are concise and accurate. Meanwhile, the logic flow is quite clear and easy to follow.

I was thinking you're just "borrowing" ideas from writing examples at the very beginning since I've just encountered a sample of the exact same topic from a western textbook. You've got the same idea till your second point. Even you are using almost the same vocabulary such as "boycott" from right from the start. Quite impressive.

That textbook categorizes this topic into a major reasoning problem of "Failing to adequately define a certain word or phrase on which the argument relies", which is the same as you did.

Will it be better if you combine the second and third point into one? It may look more stronger if you organize the two facts of the vogue define of "environmental disaster", and the fact whether CCC's mining plan would inevitably causes such kind of disaster using a concessive clause like "even we admit the definition of 'environmental disaster' right as stated by the author".

And another point for your consideration: if it's necessary to boycott CCC, then perhaps the same activities should be raised toward other companies's mining plans in West Fredonia to prevent possible pollution.

In sum, you did a fantastic job and you spirit of hard-working just urged me on.

Continue to add oil ^ ^