GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文一

　　59. The author contends that it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining

　　regulation, because regulatory problems with over-mining and pollution will be solved

　　when scientists learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical

　　elements. One reason the author gives for this conclusion is that the problem of over-

　　mining will be quickly eliminated when the amount of potentially available copper is no

　　longer limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits. Another reason given is that

　　pollution problems created by production of synthetic copper substitutes will be

　　eliminated when manufacturers no longer depend on substitutes. This argument is weak

　　because the conclusion goes beyond the scope of the premises and because the

　　argument relies on questionable assumptions.

　　To begin with, the wording of the conclusion suggests that funding for mining

　　regulation generally should be reduced, yet the premises are about copper mining only.

　　There are many mined resources other than copper; advances in copper synthesis

　　technology will in all likelihood have no bearing on whether regulation of other kinds of

　　mining should be changed.

　　Furthermore, the argument depends on the assumption that copper mining will

　　slow down once copper can be chemically synthesized. However, the author provides

　　no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Moreover, it is entirely possible that copper

　　mining will remain less expensive than copper synthesis. If so, there will be no

　　incentives, outside of regulatory ones, to slow down copper mining. In a word, the

　　problem of over-mining will remain.

　　Finally, the argument relies on the assumption that synthesizing copper will not

　　create the same kind of pollution problems as those resulting from the synthesis of

　　copper substitutes. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this

　　assumption. Without such evidence, we cannot accept the premise that pollution

　　problems will be eliminated by switching from producing copper substitutes to

　　producing copper itself.

　　in conclusion, I am not convinced on the basis of this argument that the time has

　　come to cut funding for the regulation of mining in general, or even for the regulation of

　　copper mining in particular. To strengthen the argument, the author must restrict the

　　scope of the conclusion to copper mining rather than to mining in general. The author

　　must also provide support for the two assumptions underlying the argument.