In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that

“In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that industrial manufacturing plants cause, those who manage the plants must be aware of the specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various manufacturing processes. However, few corporations have enough financial incentive to monitor this information. In order to guarantee that corporations reduce the damage caused by their plants, the federal government should require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact of their manufacturing process, and the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce these reports.”

Discuss how well reasoned... etc.


The argument claims that the federal government should mandate all corporations to produce detailed annual reports of the impact that their manufacturing practices have on the environment and to impose strict financial penalties for failure to produce these reports. To support the claim the argument cites as evidence the lack of financial incentives on the part of these firms to monitor information regarding specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various manufacturing processes. The argument suggests these measures to reduce the amount of environmental damage manifested by manufacturing plants. Stated this way the argument displays examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning and fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which no clear evidence is provided. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.


First, the argument readily assumes that few corporations maintain a record of quantity and sort of environment-damaging processes they perform. This statement is a stretch as no clear data is provided regarding the absolute number or even proportion of firms that keep safe this data. For example, it is possible that a number of firms monitor the damage they induce but refuse to make it public. Clearly then mandating the collection of this data would constitute a wasteful measure. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the number of firms that do or do not participate in data gathering practices regarding environmental damage.


Second, the argument claims that guaranteeing the collection and reporting of data concerning the damaging practices would lead to lessened damage to the environment. This is again a very weak claim as the argument fails to mention the correlation between accumulation of data and actions taken to reduce environmental damage. To illustrate, if these firms have little to no incentives to collect this data, they will have even negligible motivation to reduce the damage they are causing. While mandating them to report the data might coerce some of them to rectify their practices, it is no certainty that the majority of them would do the same. If the argument had stated how the data can be used to hold accountable the mentioned corporations, then it would have been much more convincing.


Finally, the argument never states how the federal government would engage in the process of gathering the asked data. If the firms have a high incentive to hide this data, they might not report, even when mandated, transparent information. Not only the penalties but also the process of fetching data from these corporations must be stiff. The argument also never mentions the environmental compliances of the place mentioned, while the possibility of the corporations already sticking to the of set of rules is miniscule but not null. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.


In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing for the abovementioned reasons. To assess the merits of a decision is imperative to have complete knowledge of all relevant facts. Without further information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.