AAA22集思广益中参加讨论提高自己惠及他人

A22. The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a town meeting in laceType w:st="on">RiverlaceType> laceType w:st="on">CitylaceType>.

“Recently Greenspace, Inc., purchased several hundred acres of undeveloped land on the outskirts of laceType w:st="on">RiverlaceType> laceType w:st="on">CitylaceType>. Although Greenspace has announced that it is considering plans to turn this land into a park for the city, Greenspace is owned by Megacompany, Inc., which also owns other companies that make such diverse products as cosmetics and new houses and that have typically done little to preserve the environment. Thus, to protect the animal and plant species of laceType w:st="on">RiverlaceType> City from increased pollution, consumers should refuse to purchase any products that are made by Megacompany until Greenspace abandons its plan to develop housing on the land.”

non sequitur
This means "does not follow," which is short for: the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To say, "The house is white, therefore it must be big" is an example.

因为GREEN SPACE的母公司生产化妆品等有害环境的产品，所以不能让它盖公园

irrational appeals
These urge us to accept at face value or on some basis other than their reasonableness.

和上一个的理由差不多了，但是为了凑字数可以变换句式再写一遍

生产化妆品的企业虽然一般对环境不利但是MEGA company可能由于技术先进而是一个特例

记得看一下发贴须知先。

我在看AWA224所以新题不大熟悉。这道题好象又涉及了七宗罪里面没有而800SCORE里面有的逻辑错误，希望大家一起讨论哦。

感谢版主赐教

有一点：undevelopment land 有可能是wasteland.

The author assume that the land Greenspace, Incwanted to develop is a home of animals and plants. However there is no specific information to support this assumption.

我的思路：

1/ false analogy: 认为M的其他下属公司不会保护环境G就一定不会保护环境。

2/ assumption: constructing a park in on the outskirts of River City will bring pollution rather than improve the environment of the River City.

3/ irrational appeals: 不理智的呼吁。

There is no evidence to prove the suggestion that consumers should refuse to purchase products of M company to force it to abandon the project is the best way to solve current environment problems.

这里作者是否在假设： G公司尽管宣称要盖公园，事实是要建房子。所以才呼吁大家不买其产品直至他放弃盖房子的计划。可是他没有给出证据G要发展房地产。所以是无端假设。

还有，作者提议，其他子公司没有保护环境，为了不要污染环境，不买G的产品。可是，不保护和污染是不同概念。不保护也许只是对环境没有危害，不一定就污染了。