argument141 求拍，留链回拍

ghost33UID??2267869

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 426          TIME: 0:29:06          DATE: 2007-8-11

This newsletter jumps too hastily to the conclusion that CCC will bring pollution and environmental disaster to West Fredonia, without further examination. Even it is true, before accepting its advice that consumers should refuse to purchase CCC's products, we should find out other alternatives which may also solve the potential problem as the arguer asserts.

To begin with, there is no evidence showing that pollution and environmental disaster will appear. Though mining copper using wrong techniques may pollute the area, since the arguer shows no evidence that CCC's mining way is not scientific, chances are that CCC applies advanced mining procedure which decrease the pollution to the minimal level. In addition, no information indicates that CCC will mine copper on the land purchased from West Fredonia. Given that CCC plans to open a new program on the land, the arguer should withhold his information. Moreover, though West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species, the arguer fails to demonstrate that those endangered animals are living on CCC's land. It is quite possible that what CCC bought is a piece of desert, where few animal species and no endangered animal species live nearby. If so, the so-called environmental disaster would better to remain dubious. What's more, what does the arguer mean when s/he uses the word "disaster"? Unless s/he can give a clear and reasonable explanation, we would treat his/her argument as exaggerated, thus will not take it seriously.

Moreover, the arguer unnecessarily brings a dilemma when trying to find solutions. There are other alternatives, besides asking the public to boycott the CCC's copper. The aim of this argument is to try to protect the environment, thus, people can demand CCC to protect the environment as well as possible, by setting a series of rules and signing contracts. Given CCC's mining plans will not damage the environment a lot, this alternative can be feasible. In addition, the arguer does not consider the importance of CCC's mining programs to the nation, before s/he asks CCC to abandon the plans. Maybe the nation is suffering economic recession with a high unemployment rate currently, such plans can bring many job opportunities and taxes, consequently boosts the local economy a lot. Moreover, maybe the boycott has no effect. Suppose CCC's main market is not West Fredonia, such recommendation loses its effects.

In sum, this argument is not well substantiated. To bolster his/her argument, the arguer should demonstrate that CCC will undoubtedly pollute the area and damage the environment. Also, the arguer should show that his/her solution is applicable, with more evidence.

菲子UID??2311527

TOPIC: 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."WORDS: 426          TIME: 0:29:06          DATE: 2007-8-11This newsletter jumps too hastily to the conclusion that CCC will bring pollution and environmental disaster to West Fredonia, without further examination. Even it is true, before accepting its advice that consumers should refuse to purchase CCC's products, we should find out other alternatives which may also solve the potential problem as the arguer asserts. To begin with, there is no evidence showing that pollution and environmental disaster will appear. Though mining copper using wrong techniques may pollute the area, since the arguer shows no evidence that CCC's mining way is not scientific, chances are that CCC applies advanced mining procedure which decrease the pollution to the minimal level. In addition, no information indicates that CCC will mine copper on the land purchased from West Fredonia. Given that CCC plans to open a new program on the land, the arguer should withhold his information.（这句话不是太理解哈。不知道你指的new plan 是什么？）Moreover, though West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species, the arguer fails to demonstrate that those endangered animals are living on CCC's land. It is quite possible that what CCC bought is a piece of desert, where few animal species and no endangered animal species live nearby.（这点我没想到，不错。） If so, the so-called environmental disaster would better to remain dubious. What's more, what does the arguer mean when s/he uses the word "disaster"? Unless s/he can give a clear and reasonable explanation, we would treat his/her argument as exaggerated, thus will not take it seriously.

Moreover, the arguer unnecessarily brings a dilemma when trying to find solutions.（我觉得在说其他的solutions之前，你可以先驳一下为什么要求大家不用是不对的。我的理由是，要求大家不用CCC的产品是不可能的，因为铜是基础原料，消费者鬼才知道自己用的东西里面的铜是不是CCC的。这个才是重点吧。）There are other alternatives, besides asking the public to boycott the CCC's copper. The aim of this argument is to try to protect the environment, thus, people can demand CCC to protect the environment as well as possible, by setting a series of rules and signing contracts. Given CCC's mining plans will not damage the environment a lot, this alternative can be feasible.（这个感觉跟第一段的观点有一点重复了。） In addition, the arguer does not consider the importance of CCC's mining programs to the nation, before s/he asks CCC to abandon the plans. Maybe the nation is suffering economic recession with a high unemployment rate currently, such plans can bring many job opportunities and taxes, consequently boosts the local economy a lot. Moreover, maybe the boycott has no effect. Suppose CCC's main market is not West Fredonia, such recommendation loses its effects. In sum, this argument is not well substantiated. To bolster his/her argument, the arguer should demonstrate that CCC will undoubtedly pollute the area and damage the environment. Also, the arguer should show that his/her solution is applicable, with more evidence.

ghost33UID??2267869

谢谢菲子，我回头看看再来