GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文十九-查字典英语网
搜索1
所在位置: 查字典英语网 >留学英语 > GMAT > GMAT写作 > GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文十九

GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文十九

发布时间:2016-03-02  编辑:查字典英语网小编

  79. This newspaper editorial concludes that our city should build a plant for burning

  trash in order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills. The

  author adds that an incinerator could offer economic benefits as well, since incinerators

  can be adapted to generate small amounts of electricity for other uses, and since ash

  residue from some kinds of trash can be used as a soil conditioner. Even if these claims

  are true, the authors argument is unconvincing in three important respects.

  To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating

  trash. It is possible, for example, that respiratory problems resulting from the air

  pollution caused by burning trash might be so extensive that they would outweigh the

  health risks associated with landfills. If so, the authors conclusion that switching to

  incineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously undermined.

  Secondly, the author assumes that discontinuing landfill operations would abate

  the heath threats they now pose. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible

  that irreversible environmental damage to subterranean water supplies, for example, has

  already occurred. In this event, changing from landfills to incinerators might not avoid

  or abate serious public health problems.

  Thirdly, the authors implicit claim that incinerators are economically

  advantageous to landfills is poorly supported. Only two small economic benefits of

  incineration are mentioned, while the costs associated with either burning trash or

  switching refuse disposal systems are ignored. In all likelihood, such costs would be

  significant, and may very well outweigh the economic benefits.

  In conclusion, the authors argument provides inadequate justification for

  switching from one disposal system to the other. As it stands, the argument takes into

  account only a limited number of benefits from the change, while addressing none of its

  costs. To better evaluate the argument, we must first examine all the health risks posed

  by each refuse disposal system and conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of each

  system, taking account of the cost of the new system, the cost of the changeover itself,

  and the expected costs to the community of health problems resulting from each system.

  

点击显示

推荐文章
猜你喜欢
附近的人在看
推荐阅读
拓展阅读
  • 大家都在看
  • 小编推荐
  • 猜你喜欢
  •