“If the paper from every morning edition of the nation’s largest newspaper were collected and rendered into paper pulp that the newspaper could reuse, about 5 million trees would be saved each year. This kind of recycling is unnecessary, however, since the newspaper maintains its own forests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of paper.”
Essay:The argument claims that the recycling of the nation's largest newspaper is not an ideal thing to do. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that the newspaper firm has its own forest from which the firm get's its supply of wood. The conclusion of the argument is based on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument mentions that the newspaper firm maintains its own forest and thus, recycling of newspaper won't save any trees. However, argument has failed to consider the fact that the ink that is used in newspaper production can be toxic to the trees and environment. So, if the old newspaper is not recyclyed and is not discarded properly, it can lead to negative impacts on the trees and this in turn can accelerate the deforestation.
Second, the argument has made a fraudulent assumption that the forest that is maintained by the newspaper firm is sufficient to meet the paper pulp demand of the newspaper firm. It is quite possible that apart from using wood from its own forest, the newspaper firm procures paper pulp from third party vendors. In such a situation, the newspaper firm can save a lot of trees by recycling the newspaper and decreasing its dependence on the fresh pulp. Therefore, In order to eliminate this alternate possibility, more data and research is required.
Finally, the argument has not stated anything regarding the disposal methods of old newspaper. It is quite possible that the old newspaper is being dumped in landfills. Furthermore, if the recycling of the newspaper doesn't happen then addition land will be required, and It is very likely that forests will be cleared in the future to create new landfills for such purpose. Hence, in such a case, the recycling of the old newspaper will prove to be an efficient solution.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is thus unconvincing. Based on the given premises, it can't be concluded that recycling of newspaper is necessary or not. Without any further data and knowledge, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open for debate,