第一次Argument习作~Agument141

faint5220UID: 2582666

请指教~~


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."


In this newsletter, the arguer insists that consumers should not buy products made with Consolidated Copper Company (CCC)’s cooper with the purpose of preventing pollutions and environmental disasters. To justify his recommendation, the author points out that CCC’s buying land in West Fredonia, which is home to several endangered animal species, will inevitably result in pollutions and environmental disaster. I find this argument specious in several aspects.

First of all, the author provides no evidence that the mining in West Fredonia could result in pollutions and environmental disasters. Nowadays, there are many new mining technologies to avoid environmental pollution. The CCC might already take into account the serious problems caused by mining, and are willing to use the latest technology to help reducing pollution. Without eliminating this possibility, the author’s assertion remains unconvincing.

Second of all, even CCC’s mining activities will cause pollutions, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author’s broader contention that CCC’s mining will cause ‘environmental disaster’. Without a clear definition of this term, and the pollution level which caused by the planed mining activity, the author’s contention is still unjustified.


Moreover, the arguer fails to point out whether the land for mining in West Fredonia is actually the habitat of these endangered animal species. Perhaps the location for mining and the habitat for animals is wide apart, and the possible pollution has little effect on them. Lacking such evidence that the mining activities are sure to do harm to the endangered animal species, the author still cannot make his recommendation any sense.

Finally, the author recommends that not to buy products made by CCC’s copper, but he ignored how can a consumer tell the differences between CCC’s copper to other companies’? If we cannot tell the differences, the author’s recommendation cannot work out at all.

To sum up, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To better assess the argument the author must show evidence that CCC’s planed mining on this place will pollute and will threaten endangered animal species. The author must also clearly define “environmental disaster” and make sure that it will happen because of the CCC’s mining activity. Also useful would be any information about some other methods to reduce the pollution besides not to buy CCC's copper products.

roughmanUID: 2685617

Inthis newsletter, the arguer insists that consumers should not buyproducts made with Consolidated Copper Company (CCC)’s cooper with the purpose of preventingpollutions and environmental disasters. To justify his recommendation,the author points out that CCC’s buying land in West Fredonia, which ishome to several endangered animal species, will inevitably result inpollutions and environmental disaster. I find this argument specious inseveral aspects.开头不错，非常清晰

Firstof all, the author provides no evidence that the mining in WestFredonia could result in pollutions and environmental disasters.Nowadays, there are many new mining technologies to avoid environmentalpollution. The CCC might already take into account the serious problemscaused by mining, and are willing to use the latest technology to helpreducing pollution. Therefore Without eliminating this possibility, the author’sassertion remains unconvincing.

Secondof all, even CCC’s mining activities will cause pollutions, it isnevertheless impossible to assess the author’s broader contention thatCCC’s mining will cause ‘environmental disaster’. Without a cleardefinition of this term, and the pollution level which caused by theplaned mining activity, the author’s contention is still unjustified.


Moreover,the arguer fails to point out whether the land for mining in WestFredonia is actually the habitat of these endangered animal species.Perhaps the location for mining and the habitat for animals is widelyapart, and the possible pollution has little effect on them. Lackingsuch evidence that the mining activities are sure to do harm to theendangered animal species, the author still cannot make hisrecommendation any sense.
第2、3点写的没有表达出攻击性。我觉得这四点分别是：1. 作者在文中并没有提及CCC要买下地开采 2. 即使开采也并不一定会有污染 3. 即使污染，并不会影响到鸟窝 （这一点需要讨论怎么写，因为作者的因果关系过于简单，就说“因为鸟窝在附件，所以一定会造成污染”。我觉得你可以从这层简单的因果关系上入手）4. 就是你说的。

Finally,the author recommends that not to buy products made by CCC’s copper will have a less pollution caused by mining,but the author fails to take account other companies' pollution. Neither did he notice
how can a consumer tell the differences between CCC’scopper to other companies’? If we cannot tell the differences, theauthor’s recommendation cannot work out at all.再补充点可以更好。这样写显得淡薄。

Tosum up, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To betterassess the argument the author must show evidence that CCC’s planedmining on this place will pollute and will threaten endangered animalspecies. The author must also clearly define “environmental disaster”and make sure that it will happen because of the CCC’s mining activity.Also useful would be any information about some other methods to reduce the pollution besides not to buy CCC's copper products.

加粗土黄色字体是我加入的，仅代表个人意见，可以多多讨论。
我的issue网址是https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=998055， 到时帮我comment一下。