ARGUMENT141 [sweetbox小组第八次作业] by jordan

wm23UID: 2245087

AREUMENT141

The author concludes that consumers should refuse to purchase the products of CCC’s copper to force the company revoke its mining plan in the nation of Western Fredonia, for the reason of protect endangered animal species which inhabit on that land. However, the argument suffers several fallacies, which renders it unacceptable.

On the one hand, the author fails to prove the inevitability of mining plan will pollutes the environment in the nation of Western Fredonia. In argument, the author just told us the company hopes to mining copper plan. How does the plan will be operating? Which parts of environment will be pollute if mining copper would real results pollution? The author should states these questions definitely to make his argument more convincing.

On the other hand, the author fails to inform where does the endangered species animals inhabit. We can assuming that the mining copper will pollute the environment of that land, but if the dwelling place of the endangered species animals is far from the mining land in that case, it will may not affect the lives of endangered species animals.

Thirdly, the author suggests that all consumers refuse to buy products of CCC’s copper to prevent the mining plan. For this point, the author also need more evidence to prove its reliability. Even though we assuming that the plan will pollute the environment and effect the lives of the endangered species animals, and we need prevent the operation of the plan, we still can not assure that encourage the consumers refuse to purchase the products of the company will make it cancel the mining plan. The author fails to state clear that the market scope of the company’s products, and the number of consumers who purchasing their products, hence, we can not judge the boycott effect, what is more, it makes the author’s conclusion unreliable.

In conclusion, this argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provides more evidence to prove the plan is sure to pollute the environment and affect the lives of endangered animals, and there have a great necessity to stop the plan, furthermore, the author should provide more proved effective methods about stop the plan to make the argument more reliable.

seventeenUID: 2293819

The author concludes that consumers should refuse to purchase the products of CCC’s copper to force the company revoke its mining plan in the nation of Western Fredonia, for the reason of protect protectingendangered animal species which inhabit on that land. However, the argument suffers several fallacies, which renders renderit unacceptable.

On the one hand, the author fails to prove the inevitability of mining plan will pollutes the environment in the nation of Western Fredonia. In argument, the author just told us the company hopes to carry out mining copper plan. How does the plan will be operating? Which parts of environment will be pollute pollutedif mining copper would real really results in pollution? The author should states these questions definitely to make his argument more convincing.

On the other hand, the author fails to inform where does the endangered species animals inhabit. We can assuming assume that the mining copper will pollute the environment of that land, 感觉这一句和下面的逻辑上有些不妥，我只是这么觉得，不知对不对but if the dwelling place of the endangered species animals is far from the mining land in that case, it will may not affect the lives of endangered species animals.

Thirdly, the author suggests that all consumers refuse to buy products of CCC’s copper to prevent the mining plan. For this point, the author also need more evidence to prove its reliability. Even though we assuming assumethat the plan will pollute the environment and effect affect the lives of the endangered species animals, and we need prevent preventingthe operation of the plan, we still can not assure that encourage the consumers refuse refusingto purchase the products of the company will make it cancel the mining plan. The author fails to state clearclealy that the market scope of the company’s products, and the number of consumers who purchasing their products, hence, we can not judge the boycott effect, what is more, it makes the author’s conclusion unreliable.

In conclusion, this argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provides providemore evidence to prove the plan is sure to pollute the environment and affect the lives of endangered animals, and there have a great necessity to stop the plan, furthermore, the author should provide more proved effective methods about stopstopping the plan to make the argument more reliable.