Argument71: 402 words 30 minutes
Copper occurs in nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore, and the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Until fairly recently, the only way to extract pure copper from ore was by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. New copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Therefore, we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly.
The arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to decline significantly. The main reason is that new copper-extracting methods can use up less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore as the old process, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. A careful examination would reveal how groundless this argument is.
To begin with, the arguer fails to convince that the new technologies could decrease the amount of electricity. It is possible that with the new technology, we need less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore. However, the copper extracted may be also less . Then, we need to process more raw ore in order to obtain the same amount of copper. Thus, the total electricity would not decline, or even increase. Additionally, as it mentioned in the argument, the new technology saves electricity especially with the ore which is high in copper. It is possible that the new technologies use as much electricity as the old technology dose to process the raw ore which contains little copper. However, the availability of the ore containing a high proportion of copper is unknown. It is fairly possible that most ore contains little copper. If this assumption is true, the new technology seems to have nothing to do with saving electricity.
Another flaw of this argument is that the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the copper-extraction industry might refuse to adopt the new copper-extracting technologies. Changing into new technologies means that the industry should update their machines, retrain their employees. All these will cost a lot. The cost may surpass the money by saving the electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry would be reluctant to adopt the new technologies. In additional, as the author mentions there are other valuable metal in the raw ore. Perhaps the copper-extracting technology could extract those metals together with copper. Meanwhile the new technologies could only extract copper. Apparently, the old technology would bring more wealth, and only need to pay a little more for electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry may be inclined to use the old technology.
To sum up, several critical flaws in the argument render it incredible. To substantiate the argument, the arguer should convince that the new technologies could really save electricity. To further substantiate the argument, the arguer should provide the copper-extracting industry's attitudes toward the new technologies.作者: fantasianos 时间: 2005-8-25 20:00:17
The arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to 去掉to decline significantly. The main reason suggested is that new copper-extracting methods can use up less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore as the old process, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. A careful examination would reveal how groundless this argument is.
To begin with, the arguer fails to convince that the new technologies could decrease the amount of electricity. It is possible that with the new technology, we need less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore. However, the copper extracted may be also less . Then, we need to process more raw ore in order to obtain the same amount of copper. Thus, the total electricity would not decline, or even increase. Additionally, as it is mentioned in the argument, the new technology saves electricity especially with the ore which is high in copper. It is possible that the new technologies use as much electricity as the old technology dose to process the raw ore which contains little copper. However, the availability of the ore containing a high proportion of copper is unknown. It is fairly possible that most ore contains little copper. If this assumption is true, the new technology seems to have nothing to do with saving electricity. 最好都用第三人称，ARGU的事件本身，考生是不参与的，和ISSUE不同
Another flaw of this argument is that the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the copper-extraction industry might refuse to adopt the new copper-extracting technologies. Changing into new technologies means that the industry should update their machines, and retrain their employees. All (Both of) these will (is likely to) cost a lot. The cost may surpass the money by saving the electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry would be reluctant to adopt the new technologies. In additional, as the author mentions there are other valuable metal in the raw ore. Perhaps the copper-extracting technology could extract those metals together with copper. 合并这前后两句Meanwhile the new technologies could only extract copper. Apparently, the old technology would bring more wealth, and only need to pay a little more for electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry may be inclined to use the old technology.
To sum up, several critical flaws in the argument render it incredible. To substantiate the argument, the arguer should convince that the new technologies could really save electricity. To further substantiate the argument, the arguer should provide the copper-extracting industry's attitudes toward the new technologies.