Argument141 第4篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

thiohuUID: 193100

Argument141  第4篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：40分33秒     377 words
从2005年1月26日14时20分到2005年1月26日15时40分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this newsletter, the arguer recommends that people should refuse to purchase products that are made with the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC)'s copper because CCC company purchase a large amount of land in West Fredonia, which is home to several endangered animals. To justify his recommendation, the arguer assumes that CCC would use this land for mining copper. In addition, the arguer assumes that mining will certainly cause disaster to the endangered animals inhabitat in this land. However, the argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that CCC would utilize this land for copper mining and mining would certainly cause disaster to the endangered animals in this land. However, the author overlooks other possible explanations for this purchase of land. Perhaps, CCC invested this land for building office of a branch company rather than utilizing it for mining copper. Even if CCC intended to use this land for mining copper, the author still unwarrantedly assume mining will certainly cause disaster to these endangered animals. It is entirely possible that CCC would utilize the land properly and it would protect these endangered animals rather than jeopardize them. For instance, CCC might build the mining place far away from the place where these endangered animals dwell and act. Or perhaps, CCC might draw a large amount of money to help the protection of these animals. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible explanations, the author cannot convince me that ccc company would cause a disaster to the endangered animals.

Secondly, even if CCC's mining process would jeopardize the endangered animals, the argument still relies on the assumption that refusing to buy products made with CCC's copper will force the company to abandon its mining plans. However, the author overlooks other possibilities. Perhaps, wise people would not like to take the recommended proposal since refusing to buy products would be unfairly to those companies which made products with CCC’s copper. What’s fault with those companies? Merely because they used CCC’s copper? It is also highly possible that people cannot identify which products were made of CCC's copper since no products will be labelled which copper was used in the products .If this is the case, then this recommendation would amount to nothing adverse to CCC, and thus CCC would continue to implement its mining plans.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that if CCC abandons its mining plans, the endangered animals would surely be protected. Yet, even CCC did not utilize this land for mining copper, other small companies might come to mine copper in this land as well. For this matter, perhaps a lot of companies coming to mine copper pose an even more hazard for the endangered animals since they may be less likely to pay money to protect the animals.

To sum up, the argument is untenable as it stands. To support it, the author should provide clear information about what purpose CCC will utilize the newly purchased land. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know whether other companies would be interested in mining copper if CCC abandons its mining plans.

flyingwindUID: 189320

第1个body写的不错！
Perhaps, CCC invested this land for building office of a branch company rather than utilizing it for mining copper
是不是不太让人信服？over one million square miles of land 都来building office？
这个可以批驳：动物起居地和他们买的地不在一个地方

thiohuUID: 193100

--argument 140----题目------
The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
'During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college.'

In the report, a committee at Elm City University recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a salary raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson because of her teaching and research abilities. To bolster the recommendation, the author points out that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest in the university and the money she brought to the university exceeded her salary. However, the argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

To begin with, the report relies on the assumption that Professor Thomas's popularity of her classes is attributable to her effectiveness as a teacher. Yet, this assumption overlooks other possible explanations for the popularity. It is entirely possible that Professor Thomas gave generous scores to students and students chose her classes merely for high score other than her teaching ability. It is also possible that botany classes are relatively few compared with the students in the university who wanted to learn botany, and students had no choice but to choose Professor Thomas. Without considering and ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the popularity, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas is effective as a teacher and therefore should receive a pay raise.

Secondly, the mere fact that the money Professor brought to the university exceeded her salary lends little credible support to prove that Professor Thomas is an outstanding researcher. Perhaps other professors in the university brought more grants, comparing with their salaries. For this matter, Professor Thomas would not merit a salary raise and a promotion according to the current criterion.  

Thirdly, even if Professor Thomas has demonstrated his higher teaching and research abilities, the author still cannot justifiably assumes that he deserves a 10000 dollars raise and a promotion to chairperson. Perhaps the committee should raise Professor Thomas’ salary to 8000 dollars rather than 10000 dollar’s according to the current salary criterion. Or perhaps Professor Thomas was not competent in administration business and would not suit to department chairperson. For this matter, perhaps there was another person in this department, who was more excellent than Professor Thomas and more competent to administrate. In short, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas merited the pay raise and promotion.

Finally, the author further assumes that the recommended salary and promotion would certainly keep professor from defecting to other universities. However, no evidence is offered to bolster the assumption. Perhaps, other universities were willing to offer more attractive salary and position to Professor Thomas. Or perhaps Professor Thomas cared more about more sophisticated facilities for her study and more excellent graduates, and a salary raise and promotion are less attractive.

To sum up, the argument is untenable as it stands. To support it ,the author should provide clearer evidence to prove that Professor Thomas was in fact outstanding as a teacher and researcher----perhaps by a survey showing students chose Professor Thomas for her teaching ability and some paper of Professor demonstrating her research ability. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know whether other universities were willing to offer more attractive salary and promotion to Professor Thomas.