▶ Your Answer :
In this letter,
the editor of a journal asked people to boycott goods, which are made from the
Crust Copper Company (CCC)’s copper in order to protect the West Fredonia’s
natural environment. However, the editor’s argument relies on a series of
unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the editor implies that CCC
will mining copper on the West Fredonia. While the CCC has purchased a large
amount of land in the West Fredonia, concrete connection between the purchasing tropical land on West Fredonia and the
mining copper in the land is not effectively made. There is a possibility that
CCC bought the land for another purpose. For instance, CCC can make use of the
land to strengthen their identity of the company as eco-friendly by making park
in the land. Besides, the editor is concerned about the land as if large amount
of copper are lying under this land. Unless there are thorough investigations
into copper reserves and purposes of CCC, editor’s recommendation would not
fully effective.
Additionally, Building upon the
implication that mining copper harm natural environment, the editor warns that
it will cause serious land pollution and threat the habitats of rare animals.
If CCC mine copper in the West Fredonia without any concerns, it could be true.
But if the quality of the mining technology could be better than the past then
people can be minimize damage of the environment. Nowadays, mining skills have
been developed in the form of protecting natural environment. Consequently,
mining copper may not threat animal’s habitats. Regardless of whether the
mining harms seriously the environment or not, the author does not effectively
state the methods that CCC use for mining copper.
Finally, even assuming that CCC will not
mine copper in the West Fredonia if people would not buy the product made by
their copper on purpose, the connection between boycott and mining copper in
the West Fredonia is weak. Perhaps the CCC could be perplexed if people don’t
buy their product with intentional. However, the company might consider another
way to sell their copper to manufacturing plants than stop mining in the West
Fredonia. For example, the CCC might wait people’s concern to subside and sell
their copper to factories with adjunctive benefits such as discount price. In
that manner, the company negates the people’s boycott.
It cannot overemphasize that preserve the
natural environment is very important. Even so, people cannot agree with the
author’s idea without proper evidence. The editor relies on three poor
assumptions about not only the CCC but also mining copper. To strengthen the
argument, the author should probe CCC’s purposes why they bought the land and
what kind of technology did they use recently. In addition, if editor’s
assumption is all true, then he should ponder more effective way to stop the
mining in the West Fredonia’s tropical land.
|