READING EXERCISE

gre=god read english

The following appeared in a Brenton newspaper. “The Brenton power plant draws water from Scott’s River for its cooling system and releases the warmed water back into the river. The town council recommends that the plant install a more efficient cooling system that uses less water, claiming it will be more environmentally sound. However, in Uptown, where the new system is used, a study found that the complex network of pipes in the new system tends to accumulate algae. The build up of algae can be avoided by scrubbing the pipes, which is costly, or by adding an herbicide to the water in the pipes to prevent algae accumulation. But water containing the herbicide cannot be released back into the river and it is known that low water levels can harm river ecosystems accustomed to higher levels. Therefore, Brenton power plant should continue to use the old cooling system exclusively.”

In this analysis, the arguer claims that Brenton power plant should continue to use the old cooling systems while the town council proposals the plant with a consideration of environment to install a new system which uses less water for cooling. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of Uptown where the experience of new system is fraught with disadvantages except the saving of water. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

To begin with, the arguer mentioned that a tendency of algae accumulation which is harmful will emerge in the complex network of pipes in the new system. To eliminate the influence of algae, scrubbing the pipes is an available method but is costly. It is failed to demonstrate how costly it is. If the cost of scrubbing the pipes is fewer than the cost of excess water, then scrubbing is totally an attractive and a practical method. With the using of scrubbing the pipes, the benefit of economy and environment can be achieved at the same time. If the cost is higher, then another method mentioned in this argument that adding an herbicide should be considered.

In the second method, the assumption that herbicide will lead to a low water level is unwarranted. Water which is added with herbicide can be recycled in the pipes as cooling water, which means, the decreasing of water level of rivers can be retarded as much as possible. Besides, we can also take action to separate the herbicide from water so that released the water back into river can be achieved.

At last but not least, in this analysis, the most vital problem is that the two situations are not same enough to justify the analogical deduction. The arguer takes Uptown for example and then jump to a conclusion about Brenton power plant. It is failed to consider the difference of geography, ecosystem, and pipes’ construction. All these factors will contribute to the results of cooling system. For example, if the ecosystem is characteristic with high percentage of algae, no matter what cooling system used, an accumulation of algae is inevitable. If the pipes’ construction of Uptown is more sophisticated than Brenton, the probability of emerging algae accumulation absolutely should be higher. Furthermore, the arguer only takes one plant which uses the new system into account, which leads to a unwarranted conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis is not convincing enough. To strengthen the inference, the arguer should present more relevant evidence concerning geographic factors and biological factors in different areas respectively. Only with a comprehensive analogy can a convincing conclusion be draw.