-
kriti87
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:24 am
- Followed by:2 members
Topic :
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 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."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
Response :
The article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies recommends that once scientists are able to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements , government funding can be redirected to other areas since the problem of both over-mining and pollution will be
eliminated. The argument is unconvincing and deeply flawed for several reasons.
Firstly, the author does not provide any substantial evidence to show that the other chemical elements which can be used to generate copper, are not decreasing in quantity. The argument relies on the questionable assumption that the regulation of mining of these chemical elements is not essential. The article does not provide sufficient evidence to show that these elements will not be depleted.
Secondly, the article also states that synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which causes pollution, need not be used. But, there is no guarantee that the synthesis of copper from other chemical elements will not create an equal number of pollutants. It is very much possible that these chemical elements,which have not been mentioned, may create much more deadly pollutants that may cause harmful diseases. Thus, the problem of pollution may not be eradicated.
Thirdly, the argument also depends on the assumption that people will prefer the copper generated through other elements to naturally mined copper. If this is not the case, then over-mining of copper may still continue and government funding for regulation may still be required. So, along with the mining of natural copper deposits, the generation of copper from other sources will continue side-by-side. This will not only deplete the natural deposits, but will also increase mindless and wasteful consumption.
Finally, the argument also relies on the fact that the quality of the chemically generated copper will be superior to that of natural copper. If there is significant difference in quality, then people might not prefer artificially generated copper. Thus, this implies that mining of depleting
copper deposits might still continue and hence, government funding for regulation cannot be diverted.
As it stands, however, the argument is unconvincing and flawed for the reasons stated above. It could be strengthened if it provides substantial evidence and examples to support its claim. If the above facts were taken into consideration, then the argument could have been more thorough and
believable. Thus, without substantiating the claim, one cannot say that government funding for regulation is not needed nor that the problems of over-mining and pollution will be eliminated.
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 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."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
Response :
The article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies recommends that once scientists are able to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements , government funding can be redirected to other areas since the problem of both over-mining and pollution will be
eliminated. The argument is unconvincing and deeply flawed for several reasons.
Firstly, the author does not provide any substantial evidence to show that the other chemical elements which can be used to generate copper, are not decreasing in quantity. The argument relies on the questionable assumption that the regulation of mining of these chemical elements is not essential. The article does not provide sufficient evidence to show that these elements will not be depleted.
Secondly, the article also states that synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which causes pollution, need not be used. But, there is no guarantee that the synthesis of copper from other chemical elements will not create an equal number of pollutants. It is very much possible that these chemical elements,which have not been mentioned, may create much more deadly pollutants that may cause harmful diseases. Thus, the problem of pollution may not be eradicated.
Thirdly, the argument also depends on the assumption that people will prefer the copper generated through other elements to naturally mined copper. If this is not the case, then over-mining of copper may still continue and government funding for regulation may still be required. So, along with the mining of natural copper deposits, the generation of copper from other sources will continue side-by-side. This will not only deplete the natural deposits, but will also increase mindless and wasteful consumption.
Finally, the argument also relies on the fact that the quality of the chemically generated copper will be superior to that of natural copper. If there is significant difference in quality, then people might not prefer artificially generated copper. Thus, this implies that mining of depleting
copper deposits might still continue and hence, government funding for regulation cannot be diverted.
As it stands, however, the argument is unconvincing and flawed for the reasons stated above. It could be strengthened if it provides substantial evidence and examples to support its claim. If the above facts were taken into consideration, then the argument could have been more thorough and
believable. Thus, without substantiating the claim, one cannot say that government funding for regulation is not needed nor that the problems of over-mining and pollution will be eliminated.
