argument141 [Jet小组]第十四次作业

x6xUID: 2180130

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: 440          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-3-2 21:02:52

The author of the newsletter suggests consumers refuse to purchase products made with CCC's copper until the its mining plans was abandoned. At first glance, the opinion seems to be reasoning and persuasive. However, further reflections tell me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.

In one hand, persuasive evidences are missing when author concludes that mining copper on the land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster. If CCC has abide all this industry's standards of environment protection, the mining of copper may have nothing to do with pollutions. The development of economy calls for large amount of metal resources. Therefore, abaning mining is not wise, while the correct method is to exploit resources with appropriate extent and without hurting the enviroment. Since the evidents to prove pollutions caused by CCC's mining are not available, we cannot safely agree with the author's opinion.

On the other hand, there exits a non-causal relationship - the sale condition of CCC's coppers have no inevitable relation with the product made with CCC's copper. The copper may be sold abroad and the foreign market weighs heaviest in the selling market of CCC's copper. As a result, refusing to purchase products by local consumers will have little effects on the management policy of CCC. Then, CCC exploits cooper as before and the so-called pollution caused by CCC remains. The only difference will just lie in that consumers give up to buy some necessity made with CCC's copper.

What's more, the author seems easy to get a hasty conclusion - even if we can affect or even control CCC's policies through changing consuming trends, it is free from advisability to refuse to purchase some products just for that they contain CCC's copper. Regardless of the roles those products play in common people's lives, how can store operators and origin manufacturers accept those jacobinical behavours. Rejectting Japanese products in China recently is just a case in point. For political reasons, common Chinese people are called for refusing to buy goods related with Japan, either they belong Japanese brands or are made in Japan. However, this kind of summon fails to form a widely trendancy, for sellors take up many marketting methods to prevent those bad effects, such as decrease prices, make attractive packings and displaying a lot of advertisements. Similarly, it's not obejective and fair to reject buying products made with CCC's products and the effects imagined are difficult to come true.

In sum, this is a weak argument. The statement given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about how to avoid pollution and environmental disaster in West Fredonia.