-
andrewpaulsimmons
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:38 pm
---------------------------------
GMAT Essay Prompt
----------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------
--------------
My Essay
----------------------------------------------------
The conclusion that spending should be reduced for mining regulation is founded on weak premises which rest on nothing more than speculation. At its core, the argument suggests that the primary need for copper mining regulation spending is to limit over-mining and to reduce environmental impact of creating synthetic copper. It suggests that these issues will no longer be significant after large amounts of copper can be created from chemical elements. However, there is no evidence to support that large amounts of copper will be produced in this way in the near, or even distant, future. Additionally, the assertion does not necessarily follow that over-mining is a key contributor to the cost of copper mining regulation. Moreover, it remains completely unclear how coper mining regulation spending is effected by the creation of synthetic copper. Quite simply, the argument is founded in speculation and built with peripheral and irrelevant premisses.
First, absolutely no evidence is given to support the fundamental assertion that large volumes of copper will be created in the near future. Copper is used in enormous quantities throughout manufacturing of goods, structures and transportation. An incredible amount of this new type of copper would need to be produced before it would impose a significant decrease on the demand for mined copper. The argument would be strengthened, if there were details that showed how massive quantities of copper could very soon be produced from chemical elements. As it is currently constructed, the argument rests on wishful speculation.
Second, the notion that mining regulation spending is connected to the environmental issues around the creation of synthetic copper is simply perplexing. The argument makes no attempt to correlate mining regulation to the creation of synthetic copper, but, nevertheless, declares that the the pending reduction in demand for synthetic copper will reduce the need for mining regulation spending. This premise appears to have little relevance to the conclusion and there is no question that this argument would be strengthened by its removal.
Third, while it is possible that this new type of copper would reduce the demand for mined copper it is also likely to be equally or more expensive than mined copper. If the cost of copper created by chemical elements is too high it would be unlikely that the demand for mined copper would be reduced as mining would continue to be the primary source for copper. However, even assuming that mining were significantly reduced, over mining is only one area where funds are invested in mining regulation. Surely funds must be spent to regulate a host of issues which determine miner safety. To assume that this new copper will greatly suppress the demand for mined copper is a stretch to further suggest that eliminating over mining is sufficient to warrant a reduction in mining regulation spending is simply speculation.
In short, this argument begins on pure speculation, building on the notion of a new technology displacing the demand for mined copper without discussing the feasibility of such an innovation. Then cites environmental issues with synthetic copper as a source of expense for copper mining regulation without ever discussing how the construction of synthetic copper is effected by copper mining regulation. Moreover, it assumes that this new technology would be cost effective enough to greatly reduce the demand for mining. Finally, the argument concludes that elimination of over mining would warrant a reduction in the cost of copper mining regulation without even discussing why over-mining is a key cost. This argument is structured more as a hypothetical ponderance than a serious discourse on a pending justification for reduction of current regulation spending.
GMAT Essay Prompt
----------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------
--------------
My Essay
----------------------------------------------------
The conclusion that spending should be reduced for mining regulation is founded on weak premises which rest on nothing more than speculation. At its core, the argument suggests that the primary need for copper mining regulation spending is to limit over-mining and to reduce environmental impact of creating synthetic copper. It suggests that these issues will no longer be significant after large amounts of copper can be created from chemical elements. However, there is no evidence to support that large amounts of copper will be produced in this way in the near, or even distant, future. Additionally, the assertion does not necessarily follow that over-mining is a key contributor to the cost of copper mining regulation. Moreover, it remains completely unclear how coper mining regulation spending is effected by the creation of synthetic copper. Quite simply, the argument is founded in speculation and built with peripheral and irrelevant premisses.
First, absolutely no evidence is given to support the fundamental assertion that large volumes of copper will be created in the near future. Copper is used in enormous quantities throughout manufacturing of goods, structures and transportation. An incredible amount of this new type of copper would need to be produced before it would impose a significant decrease on the demand for mined copper. The argument would be strengthened, if there were details that showed how massive quantities of copper could very soon be produced from chemical elements. As it is currently constructed, the argument rests on wishful speculation.
Second, the notion that mining regulation spending is connected to the environmental issues around the creation of synthetic copper is simply perplexing. The argument makes no attempt to correlate mining regulation to the creation of synthetic copper, but, nevertheless, declares that the the pending reduction in demand for synthetic copper will reduce the need for mining regulation spending. This premise appears to have little relevance to the conclusion and there is no question that this argument would be strengthened by its removal.
Third, while it is possible that this new type of copper would reduce the demand for mined copper it is also likely to be equally or more expensive than mined copper. If the cost of copper created by chemical elements is too high it would be unlikely that the demand for mined copper would be reduced as mining would continue to be the primary source for copper. However, even assuming that mining were significantly reduced, over mining is only one area where funds are invested in mining regulation. Surely funds must be spent to regulate a host of issues which determine miner safety. To assume that this new copper will greatly suppress the demand for mined copper is a stretch to further suggest that eliminating over mining is sufficient to warrant a reduction in mining regulation spending is simply speculation.
In short, this argument begins on pure speculation, building on the notion of a new technology displacing the demand for mined copper without discussing the feasibility of such an innovation. Then cites environmental issues with synthetic copper as a source of expense for copper mining regulation without ever discussing how the construction of synthetic copper is effected by copper mining regulation. Moreover, it assumes that this new technology would be cost effective enough to greatly reduce the demand for mining. Finally, the argument concludes that elimination of over mining would warrant a reduction in the cost of copper mining regulation without even discussing why over-mining is a key cost. This argument is structured more as a hypothetical ponderance than a serious discourse on a pending justification for reduction of current regulation spending.
