Argument141 【SWEETBOX小组】第八次作业 by 小破孩

小破孩UID: 2125288

Argument141
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."

Time: Forget???
Words: 550
In the above argument, the arguer suggests the consumers refuse products from Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) to avoid pollution of the tropic environment and reserve endangered animal species. However, the arguer fails to provide evidence that CCC will cause serious pollution problems, nor is the suggestion logically acceptable.

First of all, the argument rests on a gratuitous presumption that CCC would definitely cause environment pollution to the West Fredonia tropical region, which is unwarranted. Although, Fredonia is located in the tropic region, no information is provided whether the lands purchased by CCC are sited in or near tropic region. Neither does the arguer provide how would CCC use the lands. It is highly possible that the lands purchased in West Fredonia is mainly for products assembling which might not cause any environmental pollution at all. It also might be the case that the lands is quite far away from the tropic region with the company installing equipments updated enough to minimize any potential haphazard chemicals, waste waters or untreated mineral products. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause serious suspicion about the inevitable influence brought by CCC.

Secondly, even assuming CCC might influence the natural environment in West Fredonia, whether it would threaten the survival of endangered animals needs further analysis. If the company deal with the waste products properly and restrict the influence locally instead of spreading, their impact on those endangered animals would be quite little. Actually, myriads of other variables should be taken into consideration upon the saving of these endangered animals. For example, factors like the availability of their foods, whether those are enough or contaminated, the space for them to have daily activities, whether their natural skills are lost, concern from the society, whether the government put financial aid to help their survival or awareness of the tourists cannot be neglected. Without specific evaluation related to the above aspects, hardly can we make any prediction about the effect of operating such companies.

Moreover, whether stop purchasing products from CCC would preserve the natural environment is open to doubt. Whether such suggestion is feasible is suspected in the first place. With no supplementary information about the market share of the CCC products, the amount of demands from the market, their products qualities or the main supporting industries in West Fredonia or its nearby nations, no one can guarantee such action would welcomed or actually accepted by the copper requiring companies. Perhaps with its high quality to price ratio, products from CCC are the most popular one in existing market. Or it is also likely that in West Fredonia, most of its supporting industries have a large demand of copper products and the refuse purchasing of products of CCC may trap the nation in the nightmare. Additionally, if the lands purchased by CCC are the exact areas rich in copper mineral, other copper companies would take place of CCC at the same locations anyway. At such circumstance, the pivotal point is to eliminate the potential pollution and the preserve of natural environment.

Taken together, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given thorough discussion about the detail planning of the usage of the lands, the machines CCC would use to reduce the pollution and the local industrious development, the arguer's advice cannot be accepted.

jiangyue011UID: 2340595

In the above argument, the arguer suggests the consumers refuse products from Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) to avoid pollution of the tropic environment and reserve endangered animal species. However, the arguer fails to provide evidence that CCC will cause serious pollution problems, nor is the suggestion logically acceptable.

First of all, the argument rests on a gratuitous presumption that CCC would definitely cause environment pollution to the West Fredonia tropical region, which is unwarranted. Although, （这里没有逗号）Fredonia is located in the tropic region, no information is provided whether the lands purchased by CCC are sited in or near tropic region. Neither does the arguer provide how would CCC use the lands. It is highly possible that the lands purchased in West Fredonia is （are）mainly for products assembling which might not cause any environmental pollution at all. It also might be the case that the lands is quite far away from the tropic region with the company installing equipments updated enough to minimize any potential haphazard chemicals, waste waters or untreated mineral products. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause serious suspicion about the inevitable influence brought by CCC.

Secondly, even assuming CCC might influence the natural environment in West Fredonia, whether it would threaten the survival of endangered animals needs further analysis. If the company deal with the waste products properly and restrict the influence locally instead of spreading, their impact on those endangered animals would be quite little. Actually, myriads of other variables should be taken into consideration upon the saving of these endangered animals. For example, factors like the availability of their foods, whether those are enough or contaminated, the space for them to have daily activities, whether their natural skills are lost, concern from the society, whether the government put financial aid to help their survival or awareness of the tourists cannot be neglected. Without specific evaluation related to the above aspects, hardly can we make any prediction about the effect of operating such companies. (这段有点疑惑的就是既然文中没有说natural environment已经被破坏了，这里写它被破坏的原因是否恰当)

Moreover, whether stop purchasing products from CCC would preserve the natural environment is open to doubt. Whether such suggestion is feasible is suspected in the first place. With no supplementary information about the market share of the CCC products, the amount of demands from the market, their products qualities or the main supporting industries in West Fredonia or its nearby nations, no one can guarantee such action would welcomed or actually accepted by the copper requiring companies. Perhaps with its high quality to price ratio, products from CCC are the most popular one in existing market. Or it is also likely that in West Fredonia, most of its supporting industries have a large demand of copper products and the refuse purchasing of products of CCC may trap the nation in the nightmare. （我觉得说这点TS不如说成不能赶走CCC，这点与环境不能很好的保护似乎关系不是直接的）Additionally, if the lands purchased by CCC are the exact areas rich in copper mineral, other copper companies would take place of CCC at the same locations anyway. At such circumstance, the pivotal point is to eliminate the potential pollution and the preserve of natural environment.

Taken together, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given thorough discussion about the detail planning of the usage of the lands, the machines CCC would use to reduce the pollution and the local industrious（industrial或industry） development, the arguer's advice cannot be accepted.

我要ARGU能写你这么多而不显得有多少冗余就好了。

[ 本帖最后由 jiangyue011 于 2007-7-15 18:18 编辑 ]