Argument44有机个逻辑错误？小女子拜谢了

ckfidUID：3156944

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues.

"Over the past year, the Crust Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over 10,000 square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and, since West Fredonia is the home of several endangered animal species, in environmental disaster. But such disasters can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper unless the company abandons its mining plans."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

Hiker288UID：2438083

1. inevitably: why ? maybe no pollution if CCC is good at recyling; or the land purchased is far from the home of those species;
2. simply: can simply refuse to purchase products work ? too simple a solution
3.

shinian1987UID：2797009

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1272162&highlight=

仅供参考。

ckfidUID：3156944

3# shinian1987
谢过版主了，对Argument44我还有补充：
CCC公司购买的土地有可能在动植物稀少的地方，如沙漠。即使在这样的地方开矿，对环境的危害并不大，也不会威胁到该国家的野生动物的生存 。
简单地让消费者抵制产品以达到阻止CCC公司开矿，并不一定能达到预期的目的。考虑到其市场份额及其他公司对它的依赖，抵制有可能使其他公司（比如以CCC出产的铜为原料的企业)蒙受损失而CCC本身却没受到直接的影响。从时间来说，通过消费者抵制的办法需要的时间比较长，在这期间CCC公司完全有可能已经广泛地开矿生产并造成严重的环境危害，该办法也因此没受到预期的效果