Hy everybody!
I you are kind enough to rate my essay and to comment upon it I
would be extremely thankful.
So here it goes.....
“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 over-mining 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—over-mining 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.”
Answer:
The first questionable assumption of this argument is that the quality of the newly discovered copper would equal that of the natural one. But it may be possible that even though it resembels naturally extracted copper the new product would not have the same properties. So if the first one is better, overming will still be a problem because of the higher quality of the natural copper. For istance, think of orange jucie. This can be made out of fresh ornages with the help of a machine or just by squeezing some oranges. On the other hand Coca-Cola introduced Fanta as a product that resembels the taste of orange juice. But we all know that the chemical based orange juice, even if it’s a Coca-Cola company product, is not as good as the ,,real thing”.
Besides failling to consider the properties of the new product, the argument also does not adress the problem of fabrication. For instance the new developed copper could be more expensive to produce, case in which we could still face overmining, or it could be more polluting. A good example would be the growing of fruits, like bananas, in their natural enviroment in contrast to growing them in indoors. The last option is more expensive because the natural enviroment of the fruits must be simulated and that means money.
Finally the author assumes that the copper industry is a major part of the mining industry, so new regulations should take into account the possibility of reducing funding for this industry. But the elements composing the mining industry are different from region to region. For example in Romania, the coal and the gold mining industries are the most developed ones. So in this case a reduction in funds for the mining industry due to the development of a new type of copper would not make sense.
Finally, because it does not offer specific information regarding the properties of the new chemical based copper and the fabrication process and also the assumption that copper is a major part of the mining industry seriously hurts the structure of this argument.
Thank you!!!!!
I you are kind enough to rate my essay and to comment upon it I
would be extremely thankful.
So here it goes.....
“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 over-mining 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—over-mining 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.”
Answer:
The first questionable assumption of this argument is that the quality of the newly discovered copper would equal that of the natural one. But it may be possible that even though it resembels naturally extracted copper the new product would not have the same properties. So if the first one is better, overming will still be a problem because of the higher quality of the natural copper. For istance, think of orange jucie. This can be made out of fresh ornages with the help of a machine or just by squeezing some oranges. On the other hand Coca-Cola introduced Fanta as a product that resembels the taste of orange juice. But we all know that the chemical based orange juice, even if it’s a Coca-Cola company product, is not as good as the ,,real thing”.
Besides failling to consider the properties of the new product, the argument also does not adress the problem of fabrication. For instance the new developed copper could be more expensive to produce, case in which we could still face overmining, or it could be more polluting. A good example would be the growing of fruits, like bananas, in their natural enviroment in contrast to growing them in indoors. The last option is more expensive because the natural enviroment of the fruits must be simulated and that means money.
Finally the author assumes that the copper industry is a major part of the mining industry, so new regulations should take into account the possibility of reducing funding for this industry. But the elements composing the mining industry are different from region to region. For example in Romania, the coal and the gold mining industries are the most developed ones. So in this case a reduction in funds for the mining industry due to the development of a new type of copper would not make sense.
Finally, because it does not offer specific information regarding the properties of the new chemical based copper and the fabrication process and also the assumption that copper is a major part of the mining industry seriously hurts the structure of this argument.
Thank you!!!!!
