argument11欢迎拍文作文修改小组7.17作业

dsndiziUID: 2792853

Merely based on the unsounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer draws a conclusion that the available space in their landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. Although the conclusion seems convincing and appealing in the first glance, it is in fact ill-received because it is flaw and defective, in my point of view, the conclusion suffers from three logical flaws.

First and foremost, simply based on the excellent performance of residences on recycling twice as much aluminum and paper during the past two year, the author assumes that residents can do the same performance in future thus recycling more garbage, while the arguer fails to substantiate any evidence to support this crucial assumption. Actually, it is entirely possible that there are some financial incitements that motivating people to do that, while such situation might change in future, that means there is no guarantee that people will also engage in recycling them in future. In this sense, there is no solid evidence to justify that people will keep recycling garbage in future. what's more, only aluminum and paper just consist a little part of the whole garbage, there many other garbage like clothes and plastics which may not be easily recycled, make the performance on aluminum and paper contribute little in the overall garbage recycling, even the whole number of recycling was not deduced while increased.

In the second place, according to the increasing pay for garbage pickup, the arguer assumes that there will be more residents participate in garbage recycling, which is highly questionable, it is very likely that this community is very rich, such little increase in payment means nothing to the residents, as they may not care about that litter money, there is no way to say, it is bound to be more people recycling garbage.

Finally and may be the most importantly, the arguer hasty to the conclusion and overlook the fact that making commitments is not equals to taking actions. it can not be denied there may exist the result that even people promise they would do more recycling in the future, while as there is no one the supervise them, and do or not to do is their own rights, there is no guarantee that residents will play an effective part in this project. And what's more, what kind of garbage can people recycle, if the garbage continues to boost, overweighting people's force, the positive situation that space can last for longer by people’s efforts is just the arguer’s imagination. Lacking ruling out such alternative possibilities, the conclusion is incredible.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, fails to substantiate strong and credible evidence to validate the speaker's claim, in order to make the conclusion much more acceptable, the arguer should reason more convincingly, provide evidence that are more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.