argu 44,求批改

winnalegh

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues.

Over the past year, the Crust Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over 10,000 square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and, since West Fredonia is the home of several endangered animal species, in environmental disaster. But such disasters can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper unless the company abandons its mining plans.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.



提纲：1. 买地不一定开发铜矿，开发铜矿不一定污染环境

     2. 开发铜矿不一定危害濒危动物（动物不一定住在该地）

     3. 让消费者拒绝购买CCC产品难以执行





The author assumes that CCC will pollute the environment of West Fredonia basing on the fact that CCC has purchased a land in West Fredonia.   Further, he/she advises consumers to refuse to purchase CCC's copper productions to prevent CCC’s mining of copper in West Fredonia.   However, the author's assumption is not that warranted and the advise is lack of practicality.



Firstly, citing the fact that CCC has bought a land in West Fredonia, he/she implies that the company will mine copper in that land.   For a copper miner, this may be true, but we cannot rule out a possibility that the company do not intend to mine copper, instead it may want to construct some parks.    Even though the land will be used to mine copper, there is no evidence to show that this exploitation will inevitably pollute the environment.   It is possible that the company can produce little pollution which may not harm the land's nature condition.  



Additionally, the author cites that some endangered animals live in West Fredonia, so CCC's mining copper will do harm to this animals and lead to serious environment problems.    The claim can be warranted when these kinds of animals also lives in the land that belongs to CCC.   However, the author do not provide the any data to show the distribution of the animals.   If the land does not involve these endangered creatures, the action of mining copper will make little difference to them.   So to make clear whether mining copper in this land will harm these animals and further the environment, there should be a survey about the endangered animals’ distribution.



Lastly, the author suggests consumers to refuse copper productions of CCC in order to prevent the company from making a disaster in West Fredonia.   However, the suggestion is not practical.  It may be relatively easy to ask consumers within a region not to buy CCC's copper productions,  but it is quite difficult to persuade all the consumers that may consists of a large number of people from all over the world of CCC to stop consuming its produce.   Unless CCC only has a small range of consumers, the resisting of CCC will be hard to implemented.  





In a nut shell, the author's claim that CCC will harm the environment of West Fredonia bases on some assumptions ,which may not always warranted.  It is better to make a survey to learn about the land's usage and the condition especially the distribution of the endangered animals in West Fredonia.  Additionally, the author's advice to prevent the CCC' s mining of copper is impractical.