Argument11 【Aero小组】 号外

geyserUID: 2446453

The argument presented above is relatively sound; however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation, the idea that the space in landfill in west Egg will last longer is unwarranted lacking sufficient evidences.

First, the arguer asserts that in the past two years, residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did before. However, the arguer does not provide any information of the exact amount of aluminum and paper they discard. It is entirely possible that residents are recycling more aluminum and paper according to they use much more aluminum and paper than two years before, as a result the total amount of aluminum and paper they discard is even more than before. The arguer also fails to provide the proportion aluminum and paper consist all garbage. Perhaps although residents recycle more aluminum and paper than they did before, the total amount of garbage is influenced little from this behavior.

Moreover, the charge for garbage pickup increase does not necessarily indicate that residents will recycle more material. Whether a kind of material is recycled is determined by its physical and chemical nature. The increasing in charge can only encourage residents to recycle more but can not compel them to recycle material which can not be recycled anymore. If they have already done their best to recycle material, the increasing in charge cannot make any improvement in garbage recycling.

Additionally, whether the survey the arguer mentioned is reliable is questionable. The arguer fails to provide any evidence about the respondents of the survey. It is entirely possible that the respondents are more concerned about environmental problems. Also, the willing to recycle does not necessarily means that they will really do recycling in the future. Maybe doing recycle takes a lot of time and they would rather pay more to discard them.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to consider the garbage thrown away by industry. Maybe the garbage discarded by residents only makes up a small part of all garbage. While residents are recycling more material, industry plants are discarding increasingly garbage. Without take industry into account, the recycling in residents may make no sense at all.

In conclusion, the arguer made an over simplified conclusion that the landfill will be available longer than predicted. To support his/her conclusion, he/she need more evidences to support statement. Also, other alternative possibilities should be taken in account.
The argument presented above is relatively sound; however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation, the idea that the space in landfill in west Egg will last longer is unwarranted lacking sufficient evidences.

First, the arguer asserts that in the past two years, residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did before. However, the arguer does not provide any information of the exact amount of aluminum and paper they discard. It is entirely possible that residents are recycling more aluminum and paper according to they use much more aluminum and paper than two years before, as a result the total amount of aluminum and paper they discard is even more than before. The arguer also fails to provide the proportion aluminum and paper consist all garbage. Perhaps although residents recycle more aluminum and paper than they did before, the total amount of garbage is influenced little from this behavior.

Moreover, the charge for garbage pickup increase does not necessarily indicate that residents will recycle more material. Whether a kind of material is recycled is determined by its physical and chemical nature. The increasing in charge can only encourage residents to recycle more but can not compel them to recycle material which can not be recycled anymore. If they have already done their best to recycle material, the increasing in charge cannot make any improvement in garbage recycling.

Additionally, whether the survey the arguer mentioned is reliable is questionable. The arguer fails to provide any evidence about the respondents of the survey. It is entirely possible that the respondents are more concerned about environmental problems. Also, the willing to recycle does not necessarily means that they will really do recycling in the future. Maybe doing recycle takes a lot of time and they would rather pay more to discard them.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to consider the garbage thrown away by industry. Maybe the garbage discarded by residents only makes up a small part of all garbage. While residents are recycling more material, industry plants are discarding increasingly garbage. Without take industry into account, the recycling in residents may make no sense at all.

In conclusion, the arguer made an over simplified conclusion that the landfill will be available longer than predicted. To support his/her conclusion, he/she need more evidences to support statement. Also, other alternative possibilities should be taken in account.