Thanks my friend for your worthy advices. I hope this one would be better.
[b]The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“If the paper from every morning edition of the nation’s largest newspaper were collected and rendered into paper pulp that the newspaper could reuse, about 5 million trees would be saved each year. This kind of recycling is unnecessary, however, since the newspaper maintains its own forests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of paper.”[/b]
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Supplying required material in every business is very important, and delay in this cycle can endanger every company or organization because they lost their customers. That is why companies try to keep surplus resources for themselves. This local newspaper is not exempt from this rule. The author claims that because of forests that belong to the newspaper, recycling is not necessary. He assumed that the newspaper have enough resources to supply its consumption. This argument does not seem intellectual because it has based on unproven premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. As a result, I cannot accept this argument as valid.
Primary, this argument suffers from unproven premises. The author does not advance any reason why he thinks newspaper forests are enough for ongoing years. For example, he does not cite how many acres are these forests and how many trees exist in it. Furthermore, he forgot to say how many trees approximately are used daily by newspaper. Moreover, he does not predict unforeseen incidents like fire, drought and plant disease that can decrease trees in newspaper’s forest suddenly.
Secondly, the author based his argument on substantiated assumption. For instance, he assumes that newspaper consumption remains constant; nevertheless, with population growth it predicts that newspaper publish more issues every day. Moreover, he has considered that regulations in that country remain without change. However, history shows that governments are regulating strict laws to protect natural resources like forests. Also, he assumes that forests never finish. These assumptions are questionable.
In sum, I think the author to correct this argument should revise his premises. For example he ought to advance statics to show newspaper daily paper consumption, the extent of its forest and so on to make this issue clear. He should consider disasters like drought, fire and etc. In addition, he should change his thought and assumptions about this subject. It is not obvious that regulations or population growth remains constant. So, I cannot accept this argument at the present because of these flaws.
TOEFL listening lectures: Why does the professor mention the weather at the beginning of his lecture?