77. 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.
英语短文:吸烟有害健康 5
英语故事:小偷 5
英语短文:现代智语 2
House of Ice-cream and Pancake
After 20 years of my life really
科技英语短文:沉湎因特网 3
英语小说:成长的过程 1
英语短文:星球大战重返银幕 2
英语短文:私营军事公司的兴起 2
英语短文:吸烟有害健康 2
英语短文:生活充满选择 3
My vacation
my pencil case
英语故事:山路历险记 5
英语小说:爱要怎么说出口 12
科技英语短文:沉湎因特网 4
英语短文:小兄弟威胁着地球 1
英语故事:小偷 2
My Weekend Plan
科技英语短文:沉湎因特网 1
五一劳动节英语作文
英语短文:优秀的标准 2
英语传记:INTEL的CEO 2
英语短文:星球大战重返银幕 3
英语短文:吸烟有害健康 3
英语故事:生命的机遇 3
英语小说:成长的过程 4
英语传记:纽约时报的CEO 2
英语小说:爱要怎么说出口 13
英语短文:私营军事公司的兴起 1
不限 |