ARGUMENT141 还有一个月考试

kathy.yinUID: 176154

This editorial concludes that consumers should boycott the products which made with Consolidated Copper Company’s copper until the company abandons its mining plans. In support of his conclusion, the author points out the Consolidated Copper Company has purchased a large land in West Fredonia where is home to several endangered animal species that the Consolidated Copper Company must pollute the environment. A close examination scrutiny reveals the following fallacies.

First of all, the author commits a fallacy attributing the pollution and environmental disaster to ascribing mining copper. Mining copper may serve as one of diverse factors triggering environmental disaster, but it is inlogical for they ignore other factors. If by the pollution and environmental disaster the author simply means the company has cut down a few trees or kill some animals, then the claim would have merit; otherwise, it would not. In short, without any evidence that mining copper has malicious destroy ours environment and extinct some kinds of endangered animals, the author’s conclusion dubious at best.

Similarly, when it comes to the land where CCC had bought, which serves as an exceptional case, is insufficient to represent the West Fredonia region in general. The West Fredonia, which refer to a much broader scope than the land which CCC has bought, is home to several endangered animal species, but the land which own to CCC may not. Lacking such evidence the author simply cannot convince me that the CCC is home to several endangered animal species.

Additionally, the author simply assert that there just has one copper company named CCC who pollute and destroy the environment. No other company has retained. Perhaps there are thousands of company which mining copper in West Fredonia has destroy the environment much cruel than what the CCC has did. In this surrounding, consumers are willing to boycott some other wicked ones than the CCC which destroy the surrounding much slighter. Lacking such evidence the author cannot simply persuade the consumer to boycott the products which made with CCC’s copper.

Therefore, the argument is lacks credibility. To justify his recommendation, the author should show that the CCC has destroy the surrounding maliciously, should also define the land where CCC has bought is the area where endangered animal species are retain, and show that consumer are willing to boycott the products which are made with CCC’s copper.

imjasonUID: 176604

占个座先了
要熄灯了

没有写题目哦，要批斗的了
哈哈

imjasonUID: 176604

This editorial concludes that consumers should boycott the products which made with Consolidated Copper Company’s copper until the company abandons its mining plans. In support of his conclusion, the author points oautout the Consolidated Copper Company has purchased a large land in West Fredonia where is home to several endangered animal species that"and"may be better the Consolidated Copper Company must pollute the environment. A close (examination scrutiny)可以去掉一个吧 reveals the following fallacies.

First of all, the author commits a fallacy attributing the pollution and environmental disaster to ascribing前面已经有了个'attributing'了，这个‘ascribing’不是重复了么 mining copper. Mining copper may serve as one of diverse factors triggering environmental disaster, but it is inlogical for they ignore other factors.这个时候适当举些factors就更好了 If by the pollution and environmental disaster the author simply means the company has cut down a few trees or kill some animals,这句说得不是很清楚哦 then the claim would have merit; otherwise, it would“does” may be better not. In short, without any evidence that mining copper has maliciousadv？？应该用副词吧 destroy ours environment and extincts？ some kinds of endangered animals, the author’s conclusion is dubious at best.

Similarly, when it comes to the land where CCC had bought, which serves as an exceptional case, 主语呢？is insufficient to represent the West Fredonia region in general. The West Fredonia, which refers to a much broader scope than the land which CCC has bought, is home to several endangered animal species, but the land which owns to CCC may be not. Lacking such evidence the author simply cannot convince me that the CCC is home to several endangered animal species.

Additionally, the author simply assertsPS：请这位仁兄能在上传前就把这种基本错误搞定啊，不然很麻烦的哦 that there just has one copper company named CCC who pollutes and destroys the environment. No other company has retained. Perhaps there are thousands of companythousands of 好象也不是太可能吧 which mining copper in West Fredonia hashave destroy the environment much cruel没有出现比较级啊 than what the CCC has did. In this surrounding, consumers are willing to boycott some other wicked ones than the CCC which destroy the surrounding much slighter. Lacking such evidence the author cannot simply persuade the consumer to boycott the products which 被动的么？aremade with CCC’s copper.

Therefore, the argument is lacks这是什么 credibility. To justify his recommendation, the author should show that the CCC has destroy前面有has，这里怎么不变形呢？ the surrounding maliciously, should also define the land where CCC has bought is前面是define，这里又出现is，语法问题很严重啊 the area where endangered animal species are retain被动, and show that consumer are willing to boycott the products which are made with CCC’s copper.结尾的这个长句如果分开写效果会好些，这种样子也不是完全严格能称为是个长句啊

总的说来，文章整个思路是清晰的，论证也是符合逻辑的。但是要注意一些语法的问题哦，这种低级错误ETS是不会原谅的啊