argument 141,非限时习作，求各位点评。

ucbearUID: 2722156

自己已经参照范文，改了一遍，但是自己改还是看不出问题。想听听各位的意见。指出毛病。多谢拉。
In this newsletter, the author appeals consumers refuse topurchase products made with CCC’s copper to prevent the company’s mining planand ensuing environmental disaster. To support its conclusion, the argumentpoints out that over the past year, the CCC has purchased over one millionsquare miles of land in tropical nation of West Fredonia. He also cites thatthe pollution and environmental disaster will inevitably happen as a result ofmining copper in this dwelling place of several endangered animal species. Onthe surface, the argument appears logical. However, close scrutiny of theseevidence reveals that these lend no credible support to what the author claims.

To begin with, athreshold problem in this memo is that the author unfairly assumes that theCCC will mine copper after it has purchased over one million square miles ofland in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Lacking of this evidence, itis highly possible that since CCC has purchased the land, it has not planedto mine cooper. Or perhaps, thecompany purchase the land for other purposes, such as invest the land fordeveloping tourism, purchase this land and sublease to other companies, and soforth. In short, without ruling outother possible phenomena,
theassumption that CCC will mine cooper in Fredonia will be suspect.

Second, even ifthe CCC has mined the cooper in the area of West Fredonia, the environmentalproblem might not be occurred.
After all, the author has not yet given anyevidence that the land that CCC has acquired amountsto a significant portion of the land inhabited by endangered animal species.Nor does the author provide clear evidence that the mining of CCC hasmade pollution and harmed the endangered animals. It is entirely possibly that CCC makes strict rule to its mining,such as possible toxic air emissions,
garbage collection and so forth to guarantee that local environment willnot be harmed. Thus, until the authorprovide the evidence that the environment has been effected because ofCCC’s mining plan,
the conclusionbased on the assumption is still persuasive.

Moreover, evenassuming the foregoing assumptions have been substantiated by the author,the recommendation to refuse to purchase the products so as to prevent thedisaster might not be effective. Since the author provide no information aboutthe feasibility, the method is dubiousat best. For example, perhaps the number of people who will purchasetheir products is limited and it will take long time to get CCC’s notice aboutthe sale decrease. If the case or other situation is true, this method is simply unjustified. The author cannot convince us that the course of actionwill be enough to prevent the predicted problem.

Finally, the author also assumes that the prescribed boycott was the only means which will suffice for these purposes while overlooking other possible methods which might be moreeffective and efficient. For example, appeal the government to deter the miningplan. In short, without ruling out otherpossible means of achieving the same goal, the
refusal to their product is needed.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this memo is invalid andmisleading. To bolster the conclusion, the author should give clearer evidence that(1) CCC has damaged the environment in Fredon; (2) the clear definition ofenvironmental disaster; (3) CCC has used this land to mine the cooper ratherthan any other use. To better assess the argument it would be useful to knowwhat other means are available for preventing the environmental disaster or, inother alternative, for mitigating the impact of mining activities. Also usefulwould be any information about the likelihood that the prescribed boycott wouldbe effective in accomplished its intended objective.