ARGUMEENT141 欢迎拍砖

linkccUID: 2413074

题目：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."
字数：396          用时：00:30:00          日期：2008-3-1 22:44:14

In this argument, the author claims that if consumers simply refuse to purchase products made by CCC's Copper then the environmental disaster and endangered animal species can be completely presevered. To support this argument , the autor points out that CCC has purchased over one million square miles of land in the West Fredonia.However, after a close scrutiny, there are several logical flaws in this argrment.

First of all, the threshold problem with this argument is that the mining copper would result in pollution and environmental and be dangerous to the endangered animal species.There is almost few evidences that mining copper has passive influence to the local environement.It is highly possibily that the CCC would adopt some way of preventing enviroment so that the local enviorment can not be influenced.In addition, there is information about how the process of mining copper would harm the edangered animal species.Without in details analyzing these and other possibilities, the author's claim is illogical

Furthermore, even asuming that the mining copper would result in pollution and environemntal,the author also commits a "cause-and-effect" fallacy that if cosumers refuse to purchase product then all disaster can be prevented.There is no relation that the fomer caused the latter. First, there is no informations that the consumers reliably distinguish products that are made with CCC therefore the feasibility of this propose is contradict.Second, it is highly possibility that CCC's sold the product to other company not to the normal people. Lacking direct evidence that the way of refusing product can attribute to the decrease of CCC's products, the author can not expect us to seriously take his assumpation.

Finally, the author ignores the possibility that other measures could be taken to prevent the harmful result.If the CCC take some advanced techology of protecting enviroment, then consumers can not simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper.Or perhaps, the local people can ask for help from local government to deal with this problems.If the author can not take account into these ways, then he would only suppose that simply resuing product.

In sum, the author can not convince me that only refusing to purchase products of CCC's copper the harmful disaster can be prevented. To better substantiate thsi claims, the author should provide more affirmative evidence that the mining copper will result in pollution and environmental.In addition, I also need sufficient information and statistics to  rule out abovementioned possibilites which undermine this argument.