on March 15 at 04:35PM
When reading this argument I had three problems.
1. Whose to say the decomposing coastal creatures deposited mid ocean won't in some way harm the ecosystem there?
2. If you're a ship captain loading your ship with cargo, your ballast tanks have been emptied to maintain stability then you set off. When you get to your next port, in preparation for the loss of weight, you fill your ballast tanks. Both of these things have to be done at port because the ballast tanks must be empty while the ship is at sea which is also when it is full of cargo. So doing this process in transit just sounds absurd.
3. I anticipated E exactly.
When I got to the ACs, I was between C and E but ultimately chose C because the argument is predicated on not harming sea life so C seems more relevant. I recognize the necessity of E but I don't understand how C is not necessary as well. I also don't know how to negate it. To me C is saying "Creatures that do not survive in an environment generally cannot harm it." To me, that seems perfectly necessary for this argument to work.
How do I negate C and why isn't it necessary?
Already have an account?
on March 19 at 07:53PM
on March 20 at 04:22PM