# data[].attributes.body
(a)

- It provides seasonal work.

- It provides low-waged employment.

# data[].attributes.body
(b)

- Investing in making lithium-ion batteries longer-lasting.

- Increasing the recycling of the metal in used batteries.

- Implementing a complete ban on the evaporation method of extracting lithium.

# data[].attributes.body
a.

- Seasonal work

- Low-waged employment

b.

- Making lithium‐ion batteries longer‐lasting

- Recycling the metal in used batteries.

- Ban on the evaporation method of extracting lithium.

# data[].attributes.body
1A.

Low minimum wages

Seasonal work

# data[].attributes.body
2. Strengths:

Precise data: British Lithium plans to produce 21,000 tonnes per year for 25 years; Cornish Lithium 20,000–30,000 tonnes per year.

Economic comparisons: The statement that average Cornish salaries are £10,000 lower than the national average highlights the real need for better jobs and strengthens the case for mining as a solution.

Expert/insider opinions: Neil Elliot from Cornish Lithium promises “good, long-term, well-paid jobs” providing optimism and authority to the argument.

Cultural/historical context: References to Cornwall’s mining past and the folk song add emotional appeal and cultural depth, reminding readers of past reliance on mining.

Weaknesses:

Reliance on company promises: Quotes from Cornish Lithium representatives are promotional and may be biased. They lack independent verification.

Lack of evidence on

environmental risks: While potential harm is mentioned, no detailed data or scientific study is provided, weakening the balance of evidence.

Absence of independent

economic forecasts: The claims about job creation and community renewal are speculative and not backed by impartial economic analysis.

Over reliance on anecdotal voices: Testimonies from activists and councillors reflect opinions, not concrete proof of future outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
making lithium-ion batteries last longer.

recycling the metal used in batteries.

ban on the evaporation method of extracting lithium.

# data[].attributes.body
- some evidence is estimated(Within three to five years,

British Lithium expects to begin commercial operations and is planning to produce 21,000 tonnes of

lithium every year, for 25 years.)

- some figures are rounded (The average Cornish salary is £10,000 (USD 12,000) lower than the national average.)

- Relying on subjective opinions of survey respondents not chosen randomly. (However, many local people believe it’s worth pursuing.)

- Unsourced data (The average Cornish salary is £10,000 (USD 12,000) lower than the national average.)

# data[].attributes.body
1. a. jobs are seasonal, employment is often low-waged

b. make lithium-ion batteries longer-lasting, recycle lithium from used batteries, ban the evaporation method of lithium extraction

2. strength : historical and cultural reference strengthens the emotional and cultural link betweeen cornwall's past and its possible future, voices from local stakeholders such as Neil Elliot and Dr Loveday Jenkin, statistical projection from british lithium and cornish lithium (21,000 tonnes and 20,000-30,000 tonnes annually)

weakness : lack of independent data on environmental risks or long-term sustainability reduces the reliability of the positive case, Reliance on company statements is problematic, as they have vested interests in promoting lithium mining. Promises of “well-paid jobs” may be optimistic rather than guaranteed.

# data[].attributes.body
Both of the authors wrote a documents about discussing the topic of lithium mining and its potential Harmful and good impact on the local communities and the environments. Both documents present convincing, yet different, arguments regarding lithium mining. on Document A written by Lucie Akerman, a freelance journalist from Cornwall, UK, argues about a lithium mining could be a opportunity for the region, but the problem is that the success depends on proper a community involvement. while on Document B, by Nicole Greenfield, a writer from US-based non-profit environmental organization. in this Document, he argues that the lithium mining is using the brine evaporation method used in Chile, this is an ecologically harmful way process that could harm local communities, and that alternatives should be pursued to prevent more damages.

# data[].attributes.body
Tourism Job are low waged

Tourism Work is seasonal

# data[].attributes.body
Make lithium-ion batteries longer lasting so that fewer new resources are needed.

Recycle lithium from used batteries to reduce dependence on fresh extraction.

Ban the evaporation method of extracting lithium because it is water intensive and highly damaging to the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
- making lithium - ion batteries longer lasting

- recycling the metal used in batteries

- ban on the evaporation method of extracting lithium

# data[].attributes.body
Strength:

1. Use a statistical data: Cornish Lithium plans to produce 20,000–30,000 tonnes per year from

water and rock and expects its first site to open in 2026.

2. Economic context: The author highlights Cornwall’s economic deprivation by noting that the average salary is £10,000 below the national average.

3. Multiple stakeholder: The author includes perspectives from a company spokesperson (Neil Elliot from Cornish Lithium), a local councillor (Dr Loveday Jenkin), and a climate activist.

4. Historical and cultural context: The reference to Cornwall’s mining heritage and the folk song highlights the regional identity tied to mining.

# data[].attributes.body
Strength

Statistical data “Company plans “21,000 tonnes/year, 20,000–30,000 tonnes/year”

Considering different perspectives from company, councillor and activist.

Evidence that shows Cornwall seasonal tourism and low wages.

Weakness

- Most of evidence is only plan and is not really support well

- There is no data that cornwall could compete with chile and china
- It mention the environment but there is no clear detail

# data[].attributes.body
Use of statistic

Expert quotes

Local voices included

Links to local history

The author gives clear numbers, like British Lithium planning to produce 21,000 tones per year for 25 years. This makes the argument sound realistic and measurable. The author uses statements from company leaders and a local councilor, which adds authority and makes the argument more trustworthy. The article shares opinions from residents and activists, showing different perspectives and making the argument balanced. The author reminds readers that Cornwall has a mining tradition. This makes the idea of lithium mining sound natural and fitting for the community.

# data[].attributes.body
Seasonal work jobs only exist often like summer holidays this means that people can be left without working during off peak seasons

Low wages employed Many tourism get pay relatively low wages this contributes to Cornwall having an average salary

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

The strengths that I found from document A is the data about the production of tonnes per year in the text, which is Cornish Lithium plans to produce 20,000–30,000 tonnes per year. The second strength is from the local in there that is interviewed that says unless locals have some control, lithium mining “will be yet another thing that ruins our countryside and that

we don’t see any of the benefits from”. The third strength is that the global examples are shown in the text which are The discovery of lithium in Cornwall, lithium is used to make batteries

and is currently mainly produced in Chile, Argentina, and China. The last strength is the author is a freelance journalist living in Cornwall which shows his experience.

Weakness:

The weaknesses that I found from document A is the data about the “bringing good, long‐term, well‐paid jobs to areas that ultimately need them,” Neil Elliot, from Cornish Lithium, told me. Doesn’t explain who Neil Elliot is and what he does. So the explanation may or may not be false. The second weakness is that “I spoke with one Cornish climate activist, who didn’t want to be named.” Might be false because it doesn't give us the name of the person which can mean it is a made up evidence. The third reason about within three to five years from the british lithium might be is not accurate because it is not specify the exact time. The last reason is that it uses prediction that may not come true which says in the document about the “British Lithium expects to begin commercial operations and is planning to produce 21,000 tonnes of lithium every year, for 25 years.” and “The average Cornish salary is £10,000 (USD 12,000) lower than the national average.”

# data[].attributes.body
Document A : Cornwall, UK

Argument about lithium discovery in cornwall would boost energy in the UK’s green energy revolution

Evidence :

Cornwall has enough lithium energy to meet two - thirds of the UK predicted demand

Cornish Lithium plans to produce 20,000–30,000 tonnes per year from water and rock and expects its first site to open in 2026.

Document B : Chile and greenfield

Argument about lithium extraction in chile is critical component of

the batteries that are helping the world transition away from fossil fuels.

Evidence :

most water‐intensive. Miners pump salty

lithium‐containing water,

Legal violations: mining projects failed to obtain “free, prior, and informed consent”

# data[].attributes.body
Document A looks at Cornwall in the UK. The writer says mining could bring long-term, well-paid jobs and help a region that now depends on tourism, which only offers seasonal and low-paid work. The evidence includes numbers about how much lithium will be produced and quotes from company leaders and local councillors. This makes the argument sound positive, but most of the evidence is based on predictions for the future. Because of this, it may not be completely reliable. Document B looks at Chile and gives a more negative view. The writer explains how lithium mining has already damaged the land and harmed indigenous communities, for example rivers drying up. The evidence is strong because it uses direct voices from local people, international law, and a report suggesting solutions like recycling lithium and banning harmful methods. This makes the argument realistic, although it mainly focuses on protecting the environment and less on possible economic benefits. In judgement, Document B is more convincing. This is because it uses present and visible problems, supported by facts and solutions, while Document A depends too much on promises of what could happen in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Many predictions and less facts

Anonymous source

Lack of environmental data

Bias

The document talks about prediction and does not focus on the facts. The source is also not stated and is anonymous, so we can't trust the evidence. The document also lack of environmental data and the document is biased

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Document A is more convincing than Document B. In Document A, they have more evidence than Document B. Document A uses history as evidence, such as “Two companies – British Lithium and Cornish Lithium – are at the forefront of lithium extraction in Cornwall. The size of their planned operations is staggering – and long term. Within three to five years, British Lithium expects to begin commercial operations and is planning to produce 21,000 tonnes of lithium every year, for 25 years.” There are also global examples that were shown in the document A, “Lithium is used to make batteries and is currently mainly produced in Chile, Argentina, and China”. The author of this document also uses experiences as evidence that supports the Document A. Meanwhile, Document B has less evidences than Document A. Document B only has evidences from an expert, and they don’t have much strong facts. Document A has more in strength than Document B as well, so Document B lacks in strength. In conclusion, Document A is more convincing than Document B because in Document A, it has more evidences than Document B.

# data[].attributes.body
Strength:

Article dated: the data is still relevant since it was made in 2022

Local speaker: Local speaker is used which is Elena Rivera

International organization: there are 2 international organization that are shown, NRDC and OPSAL

Global issue: lithium mining is happening in all over the world which make the problem a global issue

Weakness:

Bias: the article only emphasizes negative impacts of lithium mining without talking the positive effect

Minimal data (quantitative and numerical): no data such as number of money generated, total carbon that is produced and other more.

Not relevant to every places: even through the problem is globally, the issue in every places is different which might cause no relevance

Speaker only focus on activist: The article leans toward activism, this may reduce perceived neutrality for readers seeking a more balanced, academic analysis.

Document 1 is more persuasive as a warning because it highlights irreversible environmental harm and human rights issues, backed by local testimonies and global NGO support. However, Document 2 is more concrete and practical with its use of numbers and economic framing.

Judgement: If the goal is to evaluate sustainability and justice, the Chile argument is more convincing because it exposes hidden costs of lithium mining that economic promises might ignore. But if the focus is purely economic development, Cornwall’s argument is stronger.

# data[].attributes.body
3. To evaluate both arguments, in document 1 its focus on lithium production are mainly in multiple countries (Chile, China, Argentina). Its argument is explained in general terms and less specific. Here the author stated the evidence through a discovery of lithium from Cornwall, which is where he is from. Most of the evidence is more from a point of view of local experiences. Like here in the article, "Two companies – British Lithium and Cornish Lithium – are at the forefront of lithium extraction in

Cornwall." Another evidence is from Dr Loveday Jenkin, a local councillor. Though it is more diverse, giving evidence not in only one place but multiple places. It still lacks clearance of its solution and not a fixed-solution.

In Document 2, its focus on lithium production in one country, that is in Chile. Its explanation is more focusing in one specific place. Here the author stated the evidence through authorized experts. Like here he stated James J.A. Blair is an assistant professor at a US university and a co‐author of a new NRDC. Yet only in one specific place, it's explanation is much clearer to understand, a fixed-solution is provided to convince readers.

However in my opinion, document 2 is more convincing.