-
[email protected]
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:45 am
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper: "If the paper from every morning edition of the nation's largest newspaper were collected and rendered into paper pulp that the newspaper could reuse, about 5 million trees would be saved each year. This kind of recycling is unnecessary, however, since the newspaper maintains its own forests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of paper." Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author states that recycling newspapers would be unnecessary for the company as they maintain their own forests and supply of paper to ensure there are no disruptions in the supply of paper. This alone does not constitute as a logically argument, and the author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. Additionally, the author does not provide evidence support of the argument which makes the argument weak and not persuasive.
Firstly, what evidence is there that if the company were to put a plan in place to recycle existing newspapers that it would be unnecessary? Would it not contribute to an increase in the bottom line if the company doesn't have to spend time and money on cutting down new tress to produce the newspapers, in addition to being environmentally friendly? The author does not state any information around the costs associated with recycling versus cutting down trees from the companies own maintained forest, which makes this a poor argument.
On the other hand, if the author could have provided support with costs of implementing a plan of action to recycle existing newspapers and show that it would not be feasible or sustainable, the argument could have been stronger to support the authors claim. The argument could be made that the company, over the long-term, would be jeopardized; however there is no support or proof to answer this question with certainty.
Thirdly, what if newspapers become more popular and the company must print more and produce a greater volume? Would the existing forest be able to maintain the volume without any disruption or would the company need to look at buying more land to ensure a continuous supply? What costs would be associated with that possibility, and can the company realistically invest capital if they do not have it? There is no evidence to show the current circulation rate of the companies newspapers and there are no trends or charts to logically and clearly analyze if they will grow in popularity.
Finally, the author has several gaps in the argument which does not make the argument sound or persuasive. If the author could have provided support or evidence as to why recycling would not be better for the company instead of stating that it wouldn't, the argument would have been more clearly tied to the logic of the author's argument.
The author states that recycling newspapers would be unnecessary for the company as they maintain their own forests and supply of paper to ensure there are no disruptions in the supply of paper. This alone does not constitute as a logically argument, and the author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. Additionally, the author does not provide evidence support of the argument which makes the argument weak and not persuasive.
Firstly, what evidence is there that if the company were to put a plan in place to recycle existing newspapers that it would be unnecessary? Would it not contribute to an increase in the bottom line if the company doesn't have to spend time and money on cutting down new tress to produce the newspapers, in addition to being environmentally friendly? The author does not state any information around the costs associated with recycling versus cutting down trees from the companies own maintained forest, which makes this a poor argument.
On the other hand, if the author could have provided support with costs of implementing a plan of action to recycle existing newspapers and show that it would not be feasible or sustainable, the argument could have been stronger to support the authors claim. The argument could be made that the company, over the long-term, would be jeopardized; however there is no support or proof to answer this question with certainty.
Thirdly, what if newspapers become more popular and the company must print more and produce a greater volume? Would the existing forest be able to maintain the volume without any disruption or would the company need to look at buying more land to ensure a continuous supply? What costs would be associated with that possibility, and can the company realistically invest capital if they do not have it? There is no evidence to show the current circulation rate of the companies newspapers and there are no trends or charts to logically and clearly analyze if they will grow in popularity.
Finally, the author has several gaps in the argument which does not make the argument sound or persuasive. If the author could have provided support or evidence as to why recycling would not be better for the company instead of stating that it wouldn't, the argument would have been more clearly tied to the logic of the author's argument.
