argument141 sweetbox第八次作业

zoe797970UID: 2249886

The claim that those pollution and environmental disaster happened in West Fredonia could be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that CCC made seems somewhat reasonable. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence, and the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, three important concerns, which he/she fails to take into account, may undermine the argument seriously.

In the first place, lacking more specific information about the mining copper on that land, it is impossible to assess whether the pollution and environmental disaster is really inevitably or not. On the one hand, ecosystem can break down some toxic substance by itself, if the pollution produced by CCC isn't too much to be decomposed, then the mining copper wouldn't engender great problem to West Fredonia; on the other hand, does the CCC take some measures to avoid pollution and environmental disaster? Common sense tells us that there are various ways to deal with different kinds of pollution, for example, some chemical reagents can break up the copper oxide existing in waste water, and some microorganism can contribute to the avoidance of over-nutrition. In a word, the arguer fails to convince us CCC does destroy the environment.

In the second place, the arguer commits a fallacy of begging the question in assuming that consumers would be willing to refuse to purchase products made with CCC's copper. He/she ignores other factors-- transportation, the balance of supply and demand, the price, the quality of products and brand --that may be more important in determining whether consumers will chose these products or not. Admittedly, more and more people consider environment to be significant and pay more attention to the origin of products, there are still a lot of people value the profit they will probably get more, if the price of CCC's products is much lower than others, there is no doubt that many will chose profit rather than environment.

What further weakens the argument is without knowing the reaction of CCC, we cannot accept the arguer's conclusion. Granted many consumers really refuse to purchase products made with CCC's copper, there is also the possibility that CCC has a lot to deal with this plight. Sales promotion and excellent advertisement can attract many people, and some so-called environmental products can totally eliminate the doubt of costumers. Any of the above scenarios, if true, would cause seriously doubt to the argument.

As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the pollution that CCC engenders is undoubtedly inevitably. Furthermore, he/she must provide enough and acceptable evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.

很无语的，睡了一觉起来结果就又忘记了要怎么写阿狗了。。。