Hello all,
This is my third time practicing AWA. So please kindly give me your grade along with feedback.
Thank you so much.
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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Well-developed and supported research has been a great resource for invention in many industries. Especially, the copper mining field is one that requires potential research to maximize its potential growth. In the preceding statement the author argues that once scientists can incorporate other chemical elements into the production of large amounts of copper, the regulation of copper mining will not be needed. While this claim may have well merit, the argument lacks sufficient evidence and is based on questionable assumptions, and based on the facts that the author included we cannot acknowledge this argument to be valid.
Most seriously, the author fails in providing sound evidence to persuade readers to agree with his conclusion. The author simply reasons production based on new chemical materials will lead to over-mining and pollution without considering other factors associated with the copper mining process. In the argument, the author points out that a larger amount of actual copper deposits and usage of synthetic copper substitutes will reduce over-mining and pollution activities. Yet, these two benefits are not the only factors when it comes to mining regulation. Thus, in order to strengthen his argument the author ought to present more comprehensive list of factors that will be improved by the new research.
Secondly, the author forms his arguments based on unclear assumptions to reach the desired conclusion. In order to suggest that mining regulation will not be needed because of the new research and thus will require less funding one has to assume that mining regulation was designed to control over-mining and pollution only. Nevertheless, this assumption lacks logical foundation since mining regulation is useful in other aspects than in over-mining and pollution. As a result, if the author wishes to make his argument stronger he would depend his conclusion on less questionable assumptions.
In conclusion, the author of the claim offers new insights into copper mining field and the on-going effort of scientist to improve the production as well as regulation process. Yet, the author by presenting incomplete evidence and confusing assumptions could not win the reader's agreement. If the author had included the previously stated points, his/her argument would have caused fewer objections.
In conclusion, the author of the claim offers new insights into copper mining field and the on-going effort of scientist to improve the production as well as regulation process. Yet, the author by presenting incomplete evidence and confusing assumptions could not win the reader's agreement. If the author had included the previously stated points, his/her argument would have caused fewer objections.
This is my third time practicing AWA. So please kindly give me your grade along with feedback.
Thank you so much.
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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Well-developed and supported research has been a great resource for invention in many industries. Especially, the copper mining field is one that requires potential research to maximize its potential growth. In the preceding statement the author argues that once scientists can incorporate other chemical elements into the production of large amounts of copper, the regulation of copper mining will not be needed. While this claim may have well merit, the argument lacks sufficient evidence and is based on questionable assumptions, and based on the facts that the author included we cannot acknowledge this argument to be valid.
Most seriously, the author fails in providing sound evidence to persuade readers to agree with his conclusion. The author simply reasons production based on new chemical materials will lead to over-mining and pollution without considering other factors associated with the copper mining process. In the argument, the author points out that a larger amount of actual copper deposits and usage of synthetic copper substitutes will reduce over-mining and pollution activities. Yet, these two benefits are not the only factors when it comes to mining regulation. Thus, in order to strengthen his argument the author ought to present more comprehensive list of factors that will be improved by the new research.
Secondly, the author forms his arguments based on unclear assumptions to reach the desired conclusion. In order to suggest that mining regulation will not be needed because of the new research and thus will require less funding one has to assume that mining regulation was designed to control over-mining and pollution only. Nevertheless, this assumption lacks logical foundation since mining regulation is useful in other aspects than in over-mining and pollution. As a result, if the author wishes to make his argument stronger he would depend his conclusion on less questionable assumptions.
In conclusion, the author of the claim offers new insights into copper mining field and the on-going effort of scientist to improve the production as well as regulation process. Yet, the author by presenting incomplete evidence and confusing assumptions could not win the reader's agreement. If the author had included the previously stated points, his/her argument would have caused fewer objections.
In conclusion, the author of the claim offers new insights into copper mining field and the on-going effort of scientist to improve the production as well as regulation process. Yet, the author by presenting incomplete evidence and confusing assumptions could not win the reader's agreement. If the author had included the previously stated points, his/her argument would have caused fewer objections.
