79. This newspaper editorial concludes that our city should build a plant for burning

　　trash in order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills. The

　　author adds that an incinerator could offer economic benefits as well, since incinerators

　　can be adapted to generate small amounts of electricity for other uses, and since ash

　　residue from some kinds of trash can be used as a soil conditioner. Even if these claims

　　are true, the authors argument is unconvincing in three important respects.

　　To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating

　　trash. It is possible, for example, that respiratory problems resulting from the air

　　pollution caused by burning trash might be so extensive that they would outweigh the

　　health risks associated with landfills. If so, the authors conclusion that switching to

　　incineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously undermined.

　　Secondly, the author assumes that discontinuing landfill operations would abate

　　the heath threats they now pose. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible

　　that irreversible environmental damage to subterranean water supplies, for example, has

　　already occurred. In this event, changing from landfills to incinerators might not avoid

【GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文十九】相关文章：

★ GMAT作文：Argument范文精选（41）

★ GMAT考试issue范文提纲（22）

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（43）

★ GMAT考试issue范文提纲（30）

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（28）

★ GMAT考试issue范文提纲（24）

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（16）

★ GMAT写作必备句型汇总33（带译文）

★ GMAT写作范文精选：Argument例文(4)

★ 精选GMAT写作范文50篇（44）