argument 106 酒香作文小组 harry1oo1oo1第10次作业

harry1oo1oo1UID: 2683605

TOPIC: ARGUMENT106 - The following editorial appeared in a newspaper in the country of Solaria.

"The Eliot Valley region was primarily agricultural twenty years ago. In the past twenty years, however, many computer-chip manufacturers have opened factories there. A recent study found that water pollution in the region was worse than in any other region in the country. Moreover, the computer-chip factories, which use large quantities of water to manufacture the chips, are probably responsible for the low levels of water in the region's lakes and reservoirs. Therefore, if the region's computer-chip makers had limits placed on the amount of water they could use, water quality would improve."

逻辑链：
①拿EV与其他地方比较，而没有与以前（factory搬进来前后）这个地方的水污染情况比较，可能EV一直比其他地方水污染严重；
②工厂用大量的水不代表排出的是污水，同时“水位下降与工厂耗水多有关”这个结论不合理
③即使它们排出的污水多，应该限制排出而不是限制用水量。

Grounding on the fact that many computer-chip factories which use large quantities of water have open factories in the Eliot Valley and citing a recent study about the water pollution there, the author concludes that it is the factories that likely responsible for the water pollution, then he advise the limitation of the use of water for the factories. At first glance, this argument seems conclusive, however, further demonstration discloses that it neglect some significant concerns which should be considered within this argument.

First of all, the study that the author cites seems not so reasonable. In this study, people compare the Eliot Valley with other regions in the country which water qualities may be better than the Eliot Valley's before the computer-chip factories moved there. Then there is no reason to owe the responsibilities to the computer-chip factories since the water pollution in Eliot Valley is worse than in any other region for more than twenties years. Accordingly, what the study should do appropriately is not the comparison with the other regions but the one with the water condition in Eliot in the past years.

What's more, the method that drawing from the case that computer-chips factories use large amount of water and then making his conclusion appears irrational. Consuming large amount of water cannot represent pouring a mass of effluents in respect that the computer-chips factors probably is provided with advanced sewerage and what they pour may unharmful for the region. Besides, blaming the low levels of water in the region's lakes and reservoirs for the computer-chip factories is seemingly dogmatical. Since using the water to supporting other regions which have serious droughts and to irrigate the crops in Eliot Valley because of the lack of rainwater may lead to the situation. So the author makes the conclusion after comprehensive investigation.

Last but not the least, even if it is the effluents poured by the computer-chip factories that causes the water pollutions and the low water levels, it is advisable to limit the discharge of the effluents, not the use of water for as much as the effluents directly cause the pollution. In addition, it is likely that the water turns to the effluent is a only small part of all the water that the computer-chip factories consume and the limitation will cause the decrease of factories' output and then decrease the income of the worker which are probably the local citizens and the revenue of the local government.

In the final analysis, the conclusion made by the author fails to substantiate his assertion. To make the conclusion more conclusive, the author should cite a more convictive study to support his assertion. Moreover, the author had better to make an all-sided survey and then make a reasonable suggestion.