Argument141【0706G－~4而后生~小组】第7次作业 by nap 有拍必回

napUID: 196976

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: 468          TIME: 0:23:58          DATE: 2007-3-28

The author of the newsletter argues that the CCC will bring a disaster and consumers can prevent it. To support the argument, the author mentioned that CCC will mine on the land that is the home to several endangered animal species. Additionally this can be prevented simply by refusing to purchase products its produce until it stops the plans. As far as I am concerned, this newsletter can not tolerate further analysis since there are some flaws in it.

The first flaw is that the author provides insufficient evidence to support that CCC will bring environment disaster. The author of the newsletter mentioned that CCC has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. However, the author does not mention where the land is located. Maybe the land is located in the field that the endangered animal species do not live in and any damage to this land will not affect the life of these animals. Moreover, if the land is located in the home of these animals, perhaps CCC has established sufficiently safe mechanism that these animals will not be harmed.

Besides, the author does not mention the difficulty of refusing to purchase CCC's copper products. If we admit that CCC will bring damage, the boycott suggestion will not easily work. The newsletter does not mention what the copper products will be made into and other relative factors. It is quite possible that the consumers are mainly the local residents and the copper products are the essential part of the residents. If the residents refuse to buy them the life of them will be heavily impaired and consequently many of them will be reluctant to obey the boycott suggestion. On the other hand, if the boycott suggestion can be carried out easily, the newsletter does not cite how many residents will care this. If they are not interested in this, we can not guarantee that they will do the suggestion.

In addition, the author fails to convince us that after refusing to purchase the products, whether the potential disaster will disappear. The newsletter mentions that CCC has purchased the land and it is possible that after CCC stops the plans it will deal with the land into other use. Maybe CCC will build a factory which will also bring damage to the local environment. Until we can guarantee CCC will not bring any harm, we can not be convinced that the environmental disaster will not happen.

In sum, we can notice that the newsletter contains many fallacies. If the author want to strength the argument, he must make us believe that the CCC will do harm to West Fredonia. Besides, the author must analyze the possibility of the suggestion and other potential actions of CCC after the plans are abandoned.

[ 本帖最后由 nap 于 2007-3-28 21:08 编辑 ]

RibbyUID: 2307433

The author of the newsletter argues that the CCC will bring a disaster and consumers can prevent it. To support the argument, the author mentioned that CCC will mine on the land that is the home to several endangered animal species. Additionally this can be prevented simply by refusing to purchase products its(是不是it 呀)  produce until it stops the plans. As far as I am concerned, this newsletter can not tolerate further analysis since there are some flaws in it.

The first flaw is that the author provides insufficient evidence to support that CCC will bring environment disaster. The author of the newsletter mentioned that CCC has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. However, the author does not mention where the land is located. Maybe the land is located in the field that the endangered animal species do not live in and any damage to this land will not affect the life of these animals. Moreover, if the land is located in the home of these animals, perhaps CCC has established sufficiently safe (safety按这里的意思)mechanism that these animals will not be harmed.

Besides, the author does not mention the difficulty of refusing to purchase CCC's copper products. If we admit that CCC will bring damage, the boycott suggestion will not easily work. The newsletter does not mention what the copper products will be made into and other relative factors. It is quite possible that the consumers are mainly the local residents and the copper products are the essential part of the residents. If the residents refuse to buy them the life of them will be heavily impaired and consequently many of them will be reluctant to obey the boycott suggestion. On the other hand, if the boycott suggestion can be carried out easily, the newsletter does not cite how many residents will care this. If they are not interested in this, we can not guarantee that they will do the suggestion.(两种程度颠倒一下比较好，先说大家不一定关心动物问题，然后说就算赞同抵抗CCC他们的生活也会因。。而。。最后还是不能。。)

In addition, the author fails to convince us that after refusing to purchase the products, whether the potential disaster will disappear. The newsletter mentions that CCC has purchased the land and it is possible that after CCC stops the plans it will deal with the land into other use. Maybe CCC will build a factory which will also bring damage to the local environment. Until we can guarantee CCC will not bring any harm, we can not be convinced that the environmental disaster will not happen.

In sum, we can notice that the newsletter contains many fallacies. If the author want to strength the argument, he must make us believe that the CCC will do harm to West Fredonia. Besides, the author must analyze the possibility of the suggestion and other potential actions of CCC after the plans are abandoned.

(总体来说还是不错的，依然佩服速度地说~)

[ 本帖最后由 Ribby 于 2007-3-30 21:01 编辑 ]

happiecookieUID: 2298905

In sum, we can notice that the newsletter contains many fallacies. If the author want(s) to strength(en) the argument, he must make us believe that the CCC will do harm to West Fredonia. Besides, the author must analyze the possibility(feasibility) of the suggestion and other potential actions of CCC after the plans are abandoned.

都很好，觉得最后一段要细点儿，毕竟评审的人给分的时候离的距离最近。