argument141 G-89-互助社-8月13日同主题写作 请拍

jason0926UID: 200697

141.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.'

In this argument, the arguer concludes that pollution and environmental disaster can be prevented if consumers refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that mining copper on this land will inevitably lead to pollution and environmental disaster. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. The arguer ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, the argument suffers from three flaws.

First of all, there is no evidence to show that Consolidated Copper Company leads to the pollution and environmental disaster through mining copper. If CCC surely result in pollution, the local government must investigate this company to prevent it from  keeping on mining copper and request the company taking some effective and rational measures to solve the problem and avoid the  phenomenon appeared again.

In addition, the consumers have no idea to identify the products which contain the copper mined by CCC. Because CCC is a mining copper company but not a company of processing products, may many products company utilize the copper which is mined by CCC, so people can not rightly identify these products. Moreover, the local people refusing to purchase the products that are made with CCC's copper does not mean that all people in the world refuse to buy these products. After all, the number of local people is little if it compares with all people in the world, and these products are not necessary for selling only in this place but can selling in other places.

Finally, even if the CCC abandons its mining plans, there must have other companies to come here for mining. Because any company who depends on mining copper for living will not give up the chance for getting profits. Furthermore, are there other companies mining copper in this place at the same time? If so, the pollution and environmental disaster may be caused by these companies rather than CCC. Moreover, besides CCC, whether some companies which are not copper companies built in this place, the disaster may also be led by these companies.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

vickycy6UID: 2107893

我来看看
要考了
要加油啊!

vickycy6UID: 2107893

In this argument, the arguer concludes that pollution and environmental disaster can be prevented if consumers refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that mining copper on this land will inevitably lead to pollution and environmental disaster. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. The arguer ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, the argument suffers from three flaws.//第一段可以再简洁些，最后三句话要两个即可。//

First of all, there is no evidence to show that Consolidated Copper Company leads to the pollution and environmental disaster through mining copper. If CCC surely result in pollution, the local government must investigate this company to prevent it from  keeping on mining copper and request the company taking some effective and rational measures to solve the problem and avoid the  phenomenon appeared again.

In addition//这个一般是只前后有些联系才用吧，就用secondly//, the consumers have no idea to identify the products which contain the copper mined by CCC. Because CCC is a mining copper company but not a company of processing products, may many products company utilize the copper which is mined by CCC, so people can not rightly identify these products. Moreover, the local people refusing to purchase the products that are made with CCC's copper does not mean that all people in the world refuse to buy these products. After all, the number of local people is little if it compares with all people in the world, and these products are not necessary for selling only in this place but can selling in other places。//这段讲的很好：）//

Finally, even if the CCC abandons its mining plans, there must have other companies to come here for mining. Because any company who depends on mining copper for living will not give up the chance for getting profits. Furthermore, are there other companies mining copper in this place at the same time? If so, the pollution and environmental disaster may be caused by these companies rather than CCC. Moreover, besides CCC, whether some companies which are not copper companies built in this place, the disaster may also be led by these companies//这是什么意思啊？//.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

我是觉得这个argument的错误不大好写，你把主要的逻辑错误都找出来了，语言上也可以，要是限时完成的就很厉害了
应该可以有信心上考场了！
加油！