argument44 求修改!

peepul

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
提纲:
1.没有足够的证据表明开矿活动会引起污染:土地有多大面积有濒危物种?开矿将占用多大比例?
2.对环境灾难没有明确定义,没有定义就不能正确的评估
3.人们是否可以区分商品是否是CCC的;即使能区分,人们是否愿意参加联合抵制?
4.是否联合抵制就足够防止灾难?是不是还需要其他的措施呢?
In this newsletter, the author draws the conclusion that if consumers refuse to purchase products made by Consolidated Copper Company’s (CCC) copper, the company will give up its mining plan in the nation of West Fredonia, thereby pollution and a environmental disaster will be avoided. To demonstrate this conclusion, the author points out that more than one million square miles of land CCC purchased in West Fredonia, and that West Fredonia is home to several endangered animals. I find that the argumentation is problematic in several aspects.
Firstly, there is no specific evidence which type of the activities in the mining plan of CCC will inevitably lead to pollution and disaster. Nor does the author provide information about what portion of the land purchased by CCC is inhabited by endangered animals, or what portion of the land will be used for copper mining. Maybe there is no endangered animals on the land, of which portion will be actually used to mine. Without these crucial message, the author simply cannot convince me that CCC must abandon its mining plan in order such damage can be prevented.
Secondly, even assuming that CCC’s mining activities in West Fredonia will cause pollution and do harm to some endangered species, it is nevertheless unreasonable to assess the author’s broader contention that CCC’s activities will cause ‘environmental disaster’. At least, without an agreed-up-on definition of the term ‘environmental disaster’ we can’t assess it precisely. If the author regards environmental disaster as merely some extent of pollution and the extinction of some endangered animals, the claim may have some sense, otherwise, it would not. Absent either a clear categorization of the term or sufficient evidence that CCC’s mining activities would carry grievous environmental consequences, the author’s contention that CCC’s activities will result in environmental disaster is unjustified.
Thirdly, the author fails to demonstrate the critical assumption that most consumers can reliably distinguish the products that are made with CCC’s copper from others. If they cannot, the approach to prevent damage may not be accessible. Moreover, the author fails to consider whether the most consumers are willing to cooperate with the boycott. Let’s us assume that even the consumers can differentiate the products. Unfortunately, if the products made with CCC’s copper is in great need in the consumers’ life, most people will not participate in the boycott. As a result, the approach fails once more. Lacking such investigation, the author cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed boycott is properly needed to prevent this disaster.
A further flaw is that, even if the boycott is feasible and needed to prevent pollution and environmental disaster, the author assumes too hastily that the boycott will suffice for these purposes. Maybe, other measures are always needed, such as the enactment of relevant policy, a an accomplished supervision and administration system.
In sum, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To sustain it, the author must show specific evidence that CCC’s planned activities on its newly acquired land will pollute the environment and threaten endangered animal species. The author also need to explicitly define “environmental disaster”. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know whether the approach of boycott is an accessible measure and whether this measure is sufficient and effective to mitigate the environmental impact of those mining activities.

普渡哥

作者的理由列的特别好，这是很大的优点。

普渡哥

作者的英语也很好，good job!

peepul

谢谢版主的鼓励!欢迎大家多指点毛病 纠正错误啊