-
CASinCameroon
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:42 am
The following appeared as part of an article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies.
"When scientists finally learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, the regulation of copper mining will become unnecessary. For one thing, since the amount of potentially available copper will no longer be limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits, the problem of overmining will quickly be eliminated altogether. For another, manufacturers will not need to use synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. Thus, since two problems will be settled-overmining and pollution-it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining regulation and either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more."
In the argument above, the author concludes that once scientists finally learn how to create copper chemically, the government should reduce funding for mining regulation, which deals with overmining and pollution. This conclusion is based on the premises that once copper can be created chemically there will be no need to overmine, and that manufacturers will not need to use copper substitutes which are highly polluting. Although at first glance this argument may seem cogent and even perhaps slightly convincing, upon deeper analysis it becomes clear that it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions which left unsupported severely weaken the argument.
The author has falsely assumed that if chemically created copper is available, there will no longer be a need to mine copper and hence overmining will be eliminated. This assumption lacks the evidence to support it. For example, it may be the case that it is so costly to produce copper chemically that it remains more economical to mine it and therefore the problem of overmining will remain. It is also possible that even with the introduction of chemically created copper, the population still advocate for copper mines due to the fact that they employ a large amount of people. Therefore without more substantial evidence that once chemically created copper is available it will be cheaper to produce and could increase employment in copper manufacturing facilities, the reader remains unconvinced of the direct impact of chemically created copper leading to a reduction in overmining.
Not only is the link between the introduction of chemically created copper and a reduction in overmining clear, but the link between its introduction and a reduction in pollution also remains unsupported. The author assumes that if this new copper is available manufacturers will not need to use copper substitutes in their production processes and therefore pollution will decrease. Although it is clear that the use of copper substitutes in manufacturing creates pollutants, it is not proven that these substitutes are worse for the environment than copper is. It is plausible that the creation of copper using a chemical process has a large environmental impact than using copper substitutes. Moreover, it is not clear that using copper in the manufacturing process will reduce pollutants, using copper may increase or have no impact of the level of pollutants. In order to strengthen the argument, the author needs to show that copper is more environmentally friendly than its substitutes in the manufacturing process.
The author has also made the assumption that if the new copper production technique is successful it will no longer be necessary for the government to provide funding for mining regulation. Although it may be the case that less regulation will be needed in the area of copper mining, it is not true that the same can be said for gold, coal and other minerals and non-minerals mining. For example, in Canada there is a Mines and Minerals Act which outlines all the rules and regulations pertaining to mining and mineral extraction in Canada. It covers a variety of minerals and non-minerals and therefore even in the event that there are changes in one mineral industry, the act itself remains a valid and pertinent document. Therefore, the reduction of funding for mining regulation based on a change in one mineral industry could have disastrous effects on the mining industry as a whole and could cause overmining of other minerals and higher pollution levels. The author needs to make clear whether the mining regulation he is referring to is a regulation specific to copper, if not then he will need to consider the impact of lower funding for regulations on other mineral industries.
In conclusion, the author has attempted to convince the reader that once chemically produced copper is available the issues of pollution and overmining will be eliminated and the government can reduce its funding in the area of mining regulation. However, due to the fact that the author has not supported his assumptions, the reader is not fully convinced of the arguments. It is not clear that the availability of the new copper will definitely result in a decline in mining of the natural copper, nor is it clear that chemically produced copper is more environmentally friendly that its substitutes used in the manufacturing process. The author needs to strengthen his arguments by dealing with these points before the reader is likely to agree with his conclusion.
"When scientists finally learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, the regulation of copper mining will become unnecessary. For one thing, since the amount of potentially available copper will no longer be limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits, the problem of overmining will quickly be eliminated altogether. For another, manufacturers will not need to use synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. Thus, since two problems will be settled-overmining and pollution-it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining regulation and either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more."
In the argument above, the author concludes that once scientists finally learn how to create copper chemically, the government should reduce funding for mining regulation, which deals with overmining and pollution. This conclusion is based on the premises that once copper can be created chemically there will be no need to overmine, and that manufacturers will not need to use copper substitutes which are highly polluting. Although at first glance this argument may seem cogent and even perhaps slightly convincing, upon deeper analysis it becomes clear that it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions which left unsupported severely weaken the argument.
The author has falsely assumed that if chemically created copper is available, there will no longer be a need to mine copper and hence overmining will be eliminated. This assumption lacks the evidence to support it. For example, it may be the case that it is so costly to produce copper chemically that it remains more economical to mine it and therefore the problem of overmining will remain. It is also possible that even with the introduction of chemically created copper, the population still advocate for copper mines due to the fact that they employ a large amount of people. Therefore without more substantial evidence that once chemically created copper is available it will be cheaper to produce and could increase employment in copper manufacturing facilities, the reader remains unconvinced of the direct impact of chemically created copper leading to a reduction in overmining.
Not only is the link between the introduction of chemically created copper and a reduction in overmining clear, but the link between its introduction and a reduction in pollution also remains unsupported. The author assumes that if this new copper is available manufacturers will not need to use copper substitutes in their production processes and therefore pollution will decrease. Although it is clear that the use of copper substitutes in manufacturing creates pollutants, it is not proven that these substitutes are worse for the environment than copper is. It is plausible that the creation of copper using a chemical process has a large environmental impact than using copper substitutes. Moreover, it is not clear that using copper in the manufacturing process will reduce pollutants, using copper may increase or have no impact of the level of pollutants. In order to strengthen the argument, the author needs to show that copper is more environmentally friendly than its substitutes in the manufacturing process.
The author has also made the assumption that if the new copper production technique is successful it will no longer be necessary for the government to provide funding for mining regulation. Although it may be the case that less regulation will be needed in the area of copper mining, it is not true that the same can be said for gold, coal and other minerals and non-minerals mining. For example, in Canada there is a Mines and Minerals Act which outlines all the rules and regulations pertaining to mining and mineral extraction in Canada. It covers a variety of minerals and non-minerals and therefore even in the event that there are changes in one mineral industry, the act itself remains a valid and pertinent document. Therefore, the reduction of funding for mining regulation based on a change in one mineral industry could have disastrous effects on the mining industry as a whole and could cause overmining of other minerals and higher pollution levels. The author needs to make clear whether the mining regulation he is referring to is a regulation specific to copper, if not then he will need to consider the impact of lower funding for regulations on other mineral industries.
In conclusion, the author has attempted to convince the reader that once chemically produced copper is available the issues of pollution and overmining will be eliminated and the government can reduce its funding in the area of mining regulation. However, due to the fact that the author has not supported his assumptions, the reader is not fully convinced of the arguments. It is not clear that the availability of the new copper will definitely result in a decline in mining of the natural copper, nor is it clear that chemically produced copper is more environmentally friendly that its substitutes used in the manufacturing process. The author needs to strengthen his arguments by dealing with these points before the reader is likely to agree with his conclusion.
