GRE考試形式：中國大陸地區(qū)、香港、澳門、韓國目前執(zhí)行分開考試的形式。由機考（分析性寫作）和筆試（語文、數(shù)學）組成。
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. 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（105） 》一文，出國留學網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
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. 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（105） 》一文，出國留學網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。