Essay Example on Million-Dollar Project to Improve Gulp River Region Economy

Evaluation of the inferences

Main argument

The main premises provide an argument on why mining licenses should be granted to the PMP. The strength of the argument rests on the casual relationships of the sub supporting premises.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Sub-arguments supporting Premise 1

Premise 1.1 provides a weak argument that is linked to premise 1.2 that the project would provide about 16,000 jobs in the region and that without these jobs that would make an economic boost, the local community would fade. This bold claim should have been supported by relevant statistical data but that is not the case.

Premise 1.2 argues that the project will provide many job opportunities (although not supported with any statistical evidence) and is supported by Sub-premise 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.

Sub-premise 1.2.1 linked to sub-premise 1.2.2 states that the 16,000 jobs created (as per premise 1.2) will result in the growth of services and this will change the lives of many people. Sub-premise 1.2.2 adds that the project will inject million dollars in the local economy with part of that going directly into local wages.

Sub-premises 1.1 states that the jobs created would make an economic boost, this is a strong argument although premise 1.1.2 says that without these jobs, communities would face away and young people would be jobless and leave in search of jobs in other places. The statement is unfounded since it is not supported in any way.

Sub-arguments supporting Premise 2

The inferences made by premise 2 are relatively weak, that the project will have a limited environmental impact. Sub-premise 2.2, linked to premise 2, argues that the proposed site is located in a remote region from the major towns of the Gulp River Region. Consequently, the direct physical effect of the coal project would be limited only to the increase in Fly-In-Fly-Out accommodation for workers, and related services. The argument in sub-premise 2.1 is even weaker claiming that the mine will have almost no effect on the region’s towns.

Sub-argument supporting Premise 3

Premise 3 main point is that coal is far cleaner than that found in other parts of the world. The sub-argument, premise 3.1, provides a weak argument that the gulp river coal burns more efficiently and burns with fewer carbon emissions than almost any other coal on the international market. Premise 3.2 argues that the project’s vision is a clean coal future and it displaces dirtier fuel on the international market thus contributing to a better climate. This cannot be the case because any form of coal still pollutes the environment.

Evaluation of the rhetoric

The appealing tone in choice of words

The authors use appealing words such as youth unemployment, droughts, and declining house prices to try and campaign for their cause. They add that “the ordinary people of Australia want this”, and that, “the hard-working, battling local communities of Gulp River who are doing it tough want this”, “Listen to the people and give the Prospectuses Mining Project the green light” and, “We beg of the inquiry board not to listen to powerful green lobbyists and their supporters in the media”. These statements are used to further support the main argument that the PMP should be given their license.

Emotionally charged language

The use of emotionally charged language is evident, with the group using words such as “long-standing residents of the region”, “strong ties”, and “history of volunteering in the local community”. All these words are used to make the inquiry board know that the company is aware of the concerns of the people when it comes to mining. Other phrases used include “we also know that we have less to worry about here than some green lobbyists from the big cities would have us all believe.” Through these words, the company is trying to show that they have the interest of the people at heart and the benefits of the project will hugely help the locals.

Loaded words/Euphemisms

The use of loaded words is also evident with the group using words as “without jobs, we know that our communities will simply fade away as our young people leave and the drought kill our farms” and, “Our valuable resource is part of PMPs vision for a clean coal future, and by displacing dirtier fuel on the international market, we can contribute to a better climate, not a worse one”. These words are used to minimise the legitimacy of the arguments from the opposing side, arguing that even the locals want the project to continue.

Evaluation of the inferences

Main argument

Premises 1 to 7 provide an independent reason for believing that the PMP should not be granted mining rights. The conclusion makes a normative claim that MPM should not be allowed coal in Australia. The strength of the argument rests on the casual relationships in the sets of linked premises and the inference drawn from the statistics supporting sub-premise 1.

Sub-arguments supporting Premise 1

Sub-premise 1 is supported by evidence and research, by arguing that the prospectus group of companies cannot be trusted since the company is under investigation around the world for tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and corruption. However, they claim the company will not pay taxes is rather unfounded since, like any mining company, it will pay taxes to the government.

Sub-arguments supporting Premise 2

The inference that this premise makes is strong. It argues that the company is known for destroying the environment and the livelihoods of traditional communities. Sub-premise 2.1 further elaborates on premise 2 by stating that the company has a documented history of destroying the environment in places such as South Africa and America. The inference is strong and the examples further strengthen the argument made.

Sub-argument supporting Premise 3

The argument made by premise 3 is strong and has no fallacious appeal or slope fallacy since it is supported by statistical evidence. The main argument is that the coal mining project would pollute the environment, adding 5 to 6 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere resulting in more forest fires.

Sub-argument supporting Premise 4

Sub-premise 4 continues the argument made by premise 3, arguing that the project will extract billions of litres of groundwater each year. Sub-premise 4.2 provides a strong argument that mining would completely damage the already fragile Gulp River basin ecosystem and result in a permanent drop in water table around the mining region, thus increased drought and collapse of farms.

Premise 5 counters the argument raised by the PMP that the project will create job opportunities by stating that the job creation claim is misleading since most of the jobs would be Fly-In-Fly-Out employment meaning the locals will not get the job. Moreover, the jobs would be taken by those who were working at the mines being closed in Western Australia and Queensland.

Premises 6 and 7 are related and factual, arguing that the ocean, beach, and reefs would be affected adversely and thousands of jobs would be lost, especially those of the coastal communities.

Evaluation of the rhetoric

Word Choice

Words such as “we” and “us” are used to appeal to the readers' sense regarding the harmful effects of the coal mining project. The first phrase is, “We, the #No-to-PMP Action Group.” The closing statement is, “We are all residents in our action group, and talking to our neighbours here in the Gulp River region we hear the same strong sentiment against mining in our communities.” These words are used to strengthen the argument that everyone is opposing the project and as such, the voice of the people should be listened to.

Loaded words/euphemisms

Loaded words are also evident in the leaflet. Words such as notorious and money laundering are used to describe the company. The leaflet further states that the company’s, “environmental track record is appalling” and “we cannot trust Prospectus to look after our local communities” All these words are used to show how the company cannot be trusted and should not be given the mining license.

Emotionally charged language

Emotionally charged language is used urging resistance to the project. For instance, it states, “Finally, Australians simply don’t want mining projects like these”, and “. You have evidence from all parties, and an 800 strong petition from us under consideration at the Inquiry Board.” These words are used to emphasize the main argument that the PMP company should not be granted any mining rights. These words also create a sense of urgency and support the argument further.

Recommendation

By analysing each leaflet, it is clear that most of the arguments raised by the ‘Gulp River Chamber of Commerce Statement’ are unfounded and contain fallacy while those raised by the ‘No to PMP Action Group’ are strong and contain data. In 2019, Australia faced many uncontrollable fires for several weeks, and it was one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the country. One of the causes of these out of control fires which ravaged the country and caused the deaths of both people and animals was the coal mining activities.