argument141 G89 考前最后一篇限时之作。大家随便来说点什么吧~~`

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

Argument141  
共用时间：32分29秒     482 words
从2005年7月22日9时45分到2005年7月22日10时32分
------题目------
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------
The author of the argument claims that consumers should refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans. To justify this recommendation, the author cites many evidence to prove that the mining plans would surely pollute the environment and dangerous for animal species. Close scrutiny of these evidence, however, none of them can lend strong support to the author's conclusion.

In the first place, the author wrongly assumes that the over one million square miles of land that was purchased by CCC has endangered animal species in it. However, there is no evidence can prove that. Even if West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species, it does not mean that those animals exist everywhere. Perhaps, the land that CCC purchased is the place that endangered animal species never appeared. Therefore, the assumption that the CCC company's mining plan would do harm to the endangered animal species is groundless.

In the second place, the author's conclusion that mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environment disaster is also incredible. He fails to tell us that mining copper would surely result in those problems with credible evidence, such as researches or some experiments that can prove it. It is entirely possible that the mining copper would not do harm to the environment. Or, even it would do something negative, the method taken by CCC would eliminate the pollutions.

Last but not least, the recommendation that consumers just simply refuse to purchase products would prevent the mining copper plans is unconvincing. First, the author simply assumes that all consumers clearly know the all products that are made with CCC's copper; however, it is not the simple case. In fact, the assumption is hard to be carried out, for there are thousands of products and numerous consumers that it is impossible for people to know that which products is produced by CCC's copper. Second, if people refute to buy the products that are made with CCC's copper, the producers may be not to tell the public that he uses CCC's copper although he uses. Third, there is no evidence that by doing so, the CCC would stop its mining plans. The CCC had put so much money on buying the land, which is costly and it would not stop the plans for that stop the plans the money would wasted and it would be a big lost for the company.

To sum up, the recommendation that the author gives is not well supported by the argument. To convince me, the author should give us more evidence that can prove that mining copper would surely results in pollution and do harm to the endangered animals. Moreover, we need more information that the recommendation that consumers refusing to buy the products that are made with CCC's copper would surely stop the mining plans.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-22 at 14:33 ]

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

自己顶

KangxiaoluUID: 177984

你的问题找的很对，但是整篇有点散，你虽然是一点一点的说了，但最多的只有两句话，这样是看不出实力的
找问题不在多，而在于写你能有话说，能说得精彩的
比如说你的第一点：濒危动物不是每个地方都有，接着就说虽然是购买了那么多土地，到底有多少用来开矿，其他的开发对动物有危害吗；还有地点的选择，动物的家在西面，我的厂在东面，有多大影响？
我是考过一次的人了 也在成都 以上有不对的请包涵 呵呵 祝你顺利 还有，有人说第一段应该写最多，考官好看哈

polymathUID: 179557

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------
The author of the argument claims that consumers should refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans. To justify this recommendation, the author cites many evidence to prove that the mining plans would surely pollute the environment and bedangerous for animal species. Close scrutiny of these evidence, however, none of them can lend strong support to the author's conclusion.

In the first place, the author wronglyunjustly/unfairly assumes that the over one million square miles of land that was purchased by CCC has endangered animal species in it. However, there is no evidence can prove that. Even if West Fredonia is home tofor several endangered animal species, it does not mean that those animals exist everywhere. Perhaps, the land that CCC purchased is the place that endangered animal species never appeared. Therefore, the assumption that the CCC company's mining plan would do harm to the endangered animal species is groundless.

In the second place, the author's conclusion that mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environment disaster is also incredible. He fails to tell us that mining copper would surely result in those problems with credible evidence这句话与首句重复太多了！, such as researches or some experiments that can prove it. It is entirely possible that the mining copper would not do harm to the environment.常识性错误！你的假设也是错误的！ Or, even it would do something negative, the method taken by CCC would eliminate the pollutions.

Last but not least, the recommendation that consumers just simply refuse to purchase products would prevent the mining copper plans is unconvincing. First, the author simply assumes that all consumers clearly know the all products that are made with CCC's copper; howeveryet 更好！, it is not the simplenecessarily the case. In fact, the assumption is hard to be carried out, for there are thousands of products and numerous consumers that it is impossible for people to know that which products is produced by CCC's copper. Second, if people refute to buy the products that are made with CCC's copper, the producers may be not to tell the public that he uses CCC's copper although he uses. Third, there is no evidence that by doing so, the CCC would stop its mining plans. The CCC had put so much money on buying the land, which is costly and it would not stop the plans for that stop the plans the money would wasted and it去掉！ would be a big lostloss for the company.

To sum up, the recommendation that the author gives is not well supported by the argument. To convince me, the author should give us more evidence that can prove that 可以去掉！mining copper would surely results in pollution and do harm to the endangered animals. Moreover, we need more information that the recommendation that 废话！去掉consumers refusing to buy the products that are made with CCC's copper would surely stop the mining plans.

简单的看了下，找出了不少错误，望今后改正！没时间了！加油！:)

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

谢谢
我觉得死定了