The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
In order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills, our municipality should build a plant for burning trash. An incinerator could offer economic as well as ecological advantages over the typical old-fashioned type of landfill: incinerators can be adapted to generate moderate amounts of electricity, and ash residue from some types of trash can be used to condition garden soil.
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
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.
英语散文:一位值得纪念的希腊人
英语故事:人生珍品 2
英语散文:母亲教我的
英语诗歌:沁园春 雪
英语短文:非得喜欢自己吗?
英语散文:Presents To Mother
英语议论文:大西洋到底有多宽
Handsome boy
英语短文:拥抱生态旅游
英语短文:道德与投资 2
英语短文:受伤保缥对戴安娜作结语 1
英语短文:富翁比以往更快地变富 2
英语短文:我最珍贵的奥林匹克奖 2
英语散文:A Forever Friend(永远的朋友)
英语短文:我们这个时代的尴尬
英语小说:爱要怎么说出口 10
英语故事:人生珍品 1
英语短篇:想知道梦的成因吗?
英语短文:学习秘籍·每天只需15分钟
英语诗歌:A Grain of Sand(一粒沙子)
英语诗歌:再别康桥
英语故事:人生珍品 4
英语散文:浪漫路曲曲折折
英语小说:爱要怎么说出口 8
英语短篇:Genius At Work(天才在工作)
英语诗歌:Rush(匆匆)
英雄传记:罗纳尔多
英语演讲:在七十寿辰宴会上的讲话
英语诗歌:白种人黑种人
英语短文:受伤保缥对戴安娜作结语 4
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |