argument141[Jet小组]第十四次作业

ellefrancaiUID: 2449693

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: 432          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-3-2 14:54:39

The argument appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally said made the conclusion that consumers should refuse to purchase products that are made with Consolidated Copper Company(CCC)'s copper until the company abandons its mining plans since the plan will result in pollution and environmental disaster in the home to several endangered animal species, according to the logic of the argument. However, this argument is full of logical flaws with dubious evidences to support his conclusion which could hardly convince me.

Firstly, there is no evidence showing the relationship between the one million square miles of land it the tropical nation of West Fredonia that CCC has purchased with the whole West Fredonia as well as the relationship between the area purchased and the residence area of those endangered animals. It is entirely possible that West Fredonia is a nation with wide lands and one million square miles of land is just a tiny part of it compared with the whole nation. Even assuming that CCC purchased most of the lands of the whole nation, it is still possible that those endangered animals never come to those purchased parts. Thus, the mining plan of CCC has no business with endangered animal species of West Fredonia.

Secondly, the author made false cause with the relationship between that mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster and the so-call cause that West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species according to the arguer. Furthermore, the arguer should provide further evidences which can prove the inescapability of pollution and environmental disaster the mining plan may cause instead of taking the fact that West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species as the cause of the pollution.

Finally, even assuming that the mining plan does bring harm to those endangered animals, there is no evidence to show what kind of products CCC manufactures and to what extent the sales of its products will be influence by the refusal of consumers because of the protection of animals in West Fredonia. It is greatly possible that CCC is a company focuses on mining copper and does not produce any kind of products which can be bought by consumers. The refusal may only harm other cooperative company associated with CCC and have no effects to CCC itself.

In sum, this argument appeared in the newsletter is unpersuasive by all means and the arguer made rush conclusion which do little help to those endangered animal species of West Fredonia if the harm does exist cause by the mining plan of CCC.