GRE考试形式：中国大陆地区、香港、澳门、韩国目前执行分开考试的形式。由机考（分析性写作）和笔试（语文、数学）组成。 172 simply cannot convince me that CCC must abandon its plans in order that such damage be prevented. Secondly, even assuming CCC's planned mining activities in West Fredonia will cause pollution and will endanger several animal species, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author's broader contention that CCC's activities will result in "environmental disaster,'' at least without an agreed-upon definition of that term. If by "environmental disaster" the author simply means some pollution and the extinction of several animal species, then the claim would have merit; otherwise, it would not. Absent either a clear definition of the term or dear evidence that CCC's activities would carry grave environmental consequences by any reasonable definition, the author's contention that CCC's activities will result in environmental disaster is simply unjustified. Thirdly, the author's position that environmental disaster is "inevitable" absent the prescribed boycott precludes the possibility that other measures can be taken to prevent CCC from carrying out its plans, or to offset any harm that CCC causes should it carry out its plans. Yet the author fails to provide assurances that no other means of preventing the predicted disaster are available. Lacking such evidence the author cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed boycott is needed to prevent that disaster. Finally, even if the prescribed boycott is needed to prevent pollution and environmental disaster in West Fredonia, the author assumes too hastily that the boycott will suffice for these purposes. Perhaps additional measures would be required as well. For instance, perhaps consumers would also need to boycott other companies that pollute West Fredonia's environment. In short, without any evidence that the recommended course of action will be enough to prevent the predicted problems, the author's conclusion remains dubious at best. In sum, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must show that CCC's planned mining activities on its newly acquired land will pollute and will threaten endangered animal species. The author must also define "environmental disaster'' and show that the inevitable results of CCC's activities, absent the proposed boycott, would meet that definition. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know what other means are available for preventing CCC from mining in West Fredonia or, in the alternative, for mitigating the environmental impact of those mining activities. A/so useful would be any information about the likelihood that the boycott would be effective in accomplishing its intended objectives. 感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（105） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。
GRE考试形式：中国大陆地区、香港、澳门、韩国目前执行分开考试的形式。由机考（分析性写作）和笔试（语文、数学）组成。 172 simply cannot convince me that CCC must abandon its plans in order that such damage be prevented. Secondly, even assuming CCC's planned mining activities in West Fredonia will cause pollution and will endanger several animal species, it is nevertheless impossible to assess the author's broader contention that CCC's activities will result in "environmental disaster,'' at least without an agreed-upon definition of that term. If by "environmental disaster" the author simply means some pollution and the extinction of several animal species, then the claim would have merit; otherwise, it would not. Absent either a clear definition of the term or dear evidence that CCC's activities would carry grave environmental consequences by any reasonable definition, the author's contention that CCC's activities will result in environmental disaster is simply unjustified. Thirdly, the author's position that environmental disaster is "inevitable" absent the prescribed boycott precludes the possibility that other measures can be taken to prevent CCC from carrying out its plans, or to offset any harm that CCC causes should it carry out its plans. Yet the author fails to provide assurances that no other means of preventing the predicted disaster are available. Lacking such evidence the author cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed boycott is needed to prevent that disaster. Finally, even if the prescribed boycott is needed to prevent pollution and environmental disaster in West Fredonia, the author assumes too hastily that the boycott will suffice for these purposes. Perhaps additional measures would be required as well. For instance, perhaps consumers would also need to boycott other companies that pollute West Fredonia's environment. In short, without any evidence that the recommended course of action will be enough to prevent the predicted problems, the author's conclusion remains dubious at best. In sum, as it stands the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must show that CCC's planned mining activities on its newly acquired land will pollute and will threaten endangered animal species. The author must also define "environmental disaster'' and show that the inevitable results of CCC's activities, absent the proposed boycott, would meet that definition. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know what other means are available for preventing CCC from mining in West Fredonia or, in the alternative, for mitigating the environmental impact of those mining activities. A/so useful would be any information about the likelihood that the boycott would be effective in accomplishing its intended objectives. 感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（105） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。
QQ
QQ空间
微博
