Hey there,
this is my first try on the AWA. I am thankful for any advice or comments.
I actually copied some phrases from other essays I read - is that okay?
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."
The author claims in the preceding statement that governments should reduce public spending on mining regulations because scientists will solve the problems related to copper mining. Though his claims may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, which lacks sufficient evidence and, hence, cannot be accepted as it stands.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Since the author does not provide any information regarding the new process to create copper which uses other chemical elements, it is impossible to determine whether the new production method will not create pollutants. However, the use of chemical elements in the production process could cause environmental damage. Moreover, the author bases the argument's conclusion on the scientist's ability to find a technique to create copper from other chemical elements. He does not provide any evidence which strengthens his claim. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack therefore any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The argument implies that scientists will relatively soon find a way to create copper from other chemicals. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to regulate the mining industry until researchers have finally found a suitable innovation. If it takes scientists, for example, five years to develop a new technique, over-mining and pollution will constitute serious issues in the meantime. Furthermore, the author assumes that companies will actually use the new technique to create copper. However, corporations may refrain from using the new technique because it could be not as efficient as the old approach.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Nevertheless, the argument could be strengthened, if the author provided additional information about recent research on the topic in order to prove that researchers will actually discover a new way to create copper. Moreover, he should discuss the economic perspective of the new technique to show that corporations have an incentive to use it. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. Hence, the argument is neither persuasive nor convincing as it stands. Had the author included the aforementioned points, he would have not only strengthened and bolstered his argument but also made it more thorough and convincing.
this is my first try on the AWA. I am thankful for any advice or comments.
I actually copied some phrases from other essays I read - is that okay?
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."
The author claims in the preceding statement that governments should reduce public spending on mining regulations because scientists will solve the problems related to copper mining. Though his claims may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, which lacks sufficient evidence and, hence, cannot be accepted as it stands.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Since the author does not provide any information regarding the new process to create copper which uses other chemical elements, it is impossible to determine whether the new production method will not create pollutants. However, the use of chemical elements in the production process could cause environmental damage. Moreover, the author bases the argument's conclusion on the scientist's ability to find a technique to create copper from other chemical elements. He does not provide any evidence which strengthens his claim. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack therefore any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The argument implies that scientists will relatively soon find a way to create copper from other chemicals. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to regulate the mining industry until researchers have finally found a suitable innovation. If it takes scientists, for example, five years to develop a new technique, over-mining and pollution will constitute serious issues in the meantime. Furthermore, the author assumes that companies will actually use the new technique to create copper. However, corporations may refrain from using the new technique because it could be not as efficient as the old approach.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Nevertheless, the argument could be strengthened, if the author provided additional information about recent research on the topic in order to prove that researchers will actually discover a new way to create copper. Moreover, he should discuss the economic perspective of the new technique to show that corporations have an incentive to use it. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. Hence, the argument is neither persuasive nor convincing as it stands. Had the author included the aforementioned points, he would have not only strengthened and bolstered his argument but also made it more thorough and convincing.
