[a习作temp] argument141 第一篇欢迎猛砖拍必回！ [复制链接]

felixyang
UID: 199223

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1021
注册时间: 2005-3-6
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-18 19:08:05 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.'

正文
In this argument, the arguer concludes that if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans which can prevent the pollution and environmental disaster. The arguer points out that the CCC has purchased over million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia which is home to several endangered animal species. In addition, the arguer assumes that mining copper be on this land will result in pollution and environmental disaster. The argument is flawed in several respects.

First, the arguer provides no evidence that the land that CCC has purchased will be used for mining copper. Perhaps the land will be used in other respects. For instance, CCC may build an experimental base for assay the properties of copper in this land, or perhaps CCC will build some buildings for their workers living. Without roll out such possibilities the arguer simply can not convince me that in order to prevent disaster CCC must abandon its plans about mining copper on the land.

Second, even if mining copper is its purpose to use this land, the arguer fails to convince me that mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster. Perhaps CCC's mining copper does not necessarily lead to disaster. Besides, the location that the endangered animal species live does not know. Perhaps the location is beyond the scope of the purchased land; or perhaps the location is far away from the location of the mining copper. Lacking such evidence the arguer can not draw any conclusion on the basis of it.

Third, can the proposed boycott be effectively carried out? Will all consumers refuse to buy the products of CCC? Even if they will not buy any CCC's products, will they buy other company's products whose staples are provided by CCC? Can they differentiate the staples' source? These questions are all not confirmed, so the arguer can not assure his solution is feasible.

Final, the arguer concludes hastily that the proposed boycott will suffice to prevent pollution and environmental disaster. Perhaps there are other solutions also needed for preventing disaster. For example, perhaps consumers also need to boycott other companies' products that also pollute West Fredonia. Without ruling out other possibilities the arguer should not conclude so hastily.

In sum, the argument is dubious at best. Before I can accept its conclusion, the arguer should provide clear evidence that CCC's purchased land will be used for mining copper, and mining copper will result in pollutions and environmental disasters. To better assess the argument, I would need to know the feasibility of the solution and whether other solutions are needed for preventing the disaster.

我不是什么牛人，但我会脚踏实地，勤奋努力！