The following appeared as part of an article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies: “When scientists finally learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, the regulation of copper mining will become unnecessary. For one thing, since the amount of potentially available copper will no longer be limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits, the problem of over-mining will quickly be eliminated altogether. For another, manufacturers will not need to use synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. Thus, since two problems will be settled—over-mining and pollution—it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining regulation and either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more.”

The following appeared as part of an article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies:

“When scientists finally learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, the regulation of copper mining will become unnecessary. For one thing, since the amount of potentially available copper will no longer be limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits, the problem of over-mining will quickly be eliminated altogether. For another, manufacturers will not need to use synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. Thus, since two problems will be settled—over-mining and pollution—it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining regulation and either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more.”

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.

The speaker’s statement is concise and convincing. It is easy to see how two problems—over-mining and pollution—will be solved once scientists learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements. The speaker’s logic is sound: once researchers learn how to produce copper in larger quantities, the amount of copper available will no longer be an issue. In fact, once copper is plentiful, it will probably become less valuable. The speaker’s premise, however, is flawed. First, the assumption that copper will become plentiful once scientists learn how to produce it in larger quantities is unfounded. The speaker cites two reasons to support his point: first, that the amount of copper available will not limit production, and second, that manufacturers will not need synthetic substitutes

On the first point, the speaker’s reasoning is faulty. Copper is a finite resource, and there is likely to be a point at which the only deposits of copper are depleted. Moreover, he assumes that, once copper is plentiful, it will no longer be valuable. Yet in reality, the opposite is true. Copper is more valuable when it is scarce, and the fact that it is plentiful will encourage companies to seek newer, cheaper sources of copper, including potentially toxic ones. Thus, not only will copper mining be regulated, but it will become stricter as well

On the second point, however, the speaker’s argument is sound. Once scientists learn how to produce copper in larger quantities, manufacturers will no longer need synthetic substitutes. After all, copper can be produced in larger quantities without harming the environment. Therefore, it will be unnecessary to regulate copper mining. Thus, the speaker is correct in suggesting that, once scientists create copper substitutes, the government should either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more

The speaker’s conclusion is sound, but his argument is not. To begin with, the assumption that scientists will eventually learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements is unproven. New discoveries in the mineral sciences are rare, and it is unlikely that scientists will ever discover a method for creating copper in large enough quantities to make its regulation unnecessary. Moreover, even if scientists did find a way to create large amounts of copper, there is no guarantee that manufacturers would no longer need synthetic copper substitutes. As such, the speaker’s argument contains a number of logical flaws, and the conclusion may or may not be valid.