GMAT考试：Argument写作范文三十

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 copper¹ 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 synthetic² 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 premises⁴ and because the argument relies on questionable⁵ 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 substantiate⁶ this assumption. Moreover, it is entirely⁷ possible that copper mining will remain less expensive than copper synthesis. If so, there will be no incentives⁸, 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 premise³ 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 underlying⁹ the argument.
60.      
　　 This editorial argues that, since career advancement¹⁰ 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 genders¹¹ 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 endorsed¹² 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.