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.
60.
This editorial argues that, since career advancement for scientists typically require: 60 to 80 hours of work per week,affordable all-day child care must be made available to scientists of both genders if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, the editorial urges that requirements for career advancement be made more flexible to insure that pre-school children can spend a significant amount of time each day with a parent. This argument is problematic in two crucial respects.
The major problem with the view expressed in the article is that inconsistent recommendations are endorsed in the argument. On the one hand, scientists are urged to put their children in all-day child-care facilities in order to advance their careers. On the other hand, they are encouraged to spend a significant amount of time each day with their children. Obviously, scientists cannot be expected to adhere to both of these recommend ations.
Another problem is that the recommendations are based on the assumption that e or at least most. scientists have young or preschool-age children. But the editorial provides no evidence to support this assumption, nor is this assumption very likely to be true. Since, childless scientists or scientists whose children are old enough t: take care of themselves will have no need for the services advocated in this article it is doubtful that these recommendations will receive much widespread support.
In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author must show that most scientists have preschool children and consequently are in need c the recommended services. Additionally, the author must address and resolve the apparent conflict between the recommendations.
2013年职称英语考试阅读理解应对的四大技巧
2013年职称英语最后1天临时抱佛脚诀窍
职称英语考试技巧如何主动降低阅读题的难度
2014年职称英语考试大纲发布前的复习策略
2013年职称英语理工A70分考生的经验分享
2013年职称英语考试最后3天你还有哪些没做
2014年职称英语考试不背单词如何通关
2014职称英语考试备考指导健康心态很关键
2013年职称英语考试各题型的答题技巧
2013职称英语临考温馨提示六大事项千万要注意
如何充分利用零散时间来复习2014职称英语考试
2013年职称英语考试词典选择有技巧
2013职称英语考试考前心态调节帮你轻松上考场
2014年职称英语考试大龄考生如何备考
2014年职称英语考试词汇记忆的六大技巧总结
2013年职称英语阅读理解答题的技巧
2014年职称英语备考的六大误区
2013年职称英语考场的需求提前知
大龄考生备考2014职称英语考试信心最重要
基础差的考生怎样应对2013职称英语考试
2014职称英语备考指导直播课堂精彩回放第3页
2014年职称英语考试备考指导如何巧记单词
2013年职称英语考试考场答题的优先原则
2013职称英语答题顺序和答题时间控制
2013职称英语补全短文答题思路和逻辑推理
2014年职称英语考试避免走入六大误区
2014年职称英语考试报辅导班需要注意的事项
2013年职称英语考前最后一天你准备好了吗
2013年职称英语考场查词攻略
职称英语阅读时的五不要
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |