argument71 清凉夏日小组 3组作业

gjqfishesUID: 2229321

Argument 71

提纲：

1、得到相同量的铜不一定省电
2、矿藏的铜含量有高有底，整体来看新方法省电的效果未知
3、新方法若没有得到大规模使用，则谈不上省电
4、 若铜的产量将会提高，那即使采用省电的方法，用电的总量也不会减少

  The argument is well-presented, but not well-resoned. By making a comparison of the old way to extract pure copper from ore, which requires large amount of electric energy, with the new method that uses up to 40 percent less electricity to peocess the same amount of raw ore, the argument that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly seems logical.
  However, the 40 percent  electricity is saved when the two ways to process th e same amount of ore, but not to produce equal copper. Though the new method comsumes less energy ,it may be  less effetive. As the same amount of raw ore,the old way can produce 1000t copper , as an example, but the new way maybe just can produce 800t. So when we consider the energy comsume to produce the same amount of copper, the new way might not use so less electricity than the old one. In addition, the author mentioned that the 40 percentage less usage of electricity espacially occured in the high proportion ore of copper. Actually, the proportion of the copper in the ore is very different  in nature,and it is possible that most of the copper ore has a low proportion .  Then we don't kown how the new method works to those large amout of low proportion ore. So the whole effect of the new way to save energy is unkown.   
    A conclution could not be made just by the reason that  the new way to extract copper could  cost of less electricity. Now the old method was broadly used in the copper-extraction industry, maybe some factories are trying the new way. But if the less energy consume way was not spreaded vastly, and the old way was still the most used method, the usage of electrcity couldn't be siginificantly reduced. And also, when the amout of the copper produced increases dynamically, the use of the energy will surely not decline.
  Overall, the reasoning behind the expection that the amount of electrcity used by the copper-extraction industry seems logical as presented above since the new way was founded to extract copper with a less energy consume. Howerver, before any final decision is made about the future energy cost in the  industy of copper, the author should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes beside the difference between the old way and the new one.

[ 本帖最后由 gjqfishes 于 2006-7-17 16:03 编辑 ]

seakoUID: 2223371

The argument is well-presented, but not well-resoned. By making a comparison of the old way to
                                        ^^^reasoned
extract pure copper from ore, which requires large amount of electric energy, with the new method that uses up to 40 percent less electricity to peocess the same amount of raw ore, the argument that
                                      ^^^process
the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly seems logical.
  开头段简洁明了，意思明确清晰

However, the 40 percent electricity is saved when the two ways to process the same amount of ore, but not to produce equal copper. Though the new method comsumes less energy ,it may be  
                                                       ^^^consumes
less effetive. As the same amount of raw ore, the old way can produce 1000t copper, as an
      ^^^effective
example, but the new way maybe just can produce 800t. So when we consider the energy comsume to produce the same amount of copper, the new way might not use so less electricity
   ^^^consumed                                                ^^^建议改成that
than the old one. In addition, the author mentioned that the 40 percentage less usage of electricity espacially occured in the high proportion ore of copper. Actually, the proportion of the copper in
^^^especially occurred
the ore is very different  in nature,and it is possible that most of the copper ore has a low
                        
proportion .  Then we don't kown how the new method works to those large amout of low
                         ^^^ know                               ^^^amount
proportion ore. So the whole effect of the new way to save energy is unkown.   
                                                         ^^^unknow
论证过程可以，但条理显得不太清晰


// A 换成The好点吧
A conclution could not be made just by the reason that the new way to extract copper could  
    ^^^conclusion
cost of less electricity. Now the old method was broadly used in the copper-extraction industry,
    ^^^of
maybe some factories are trying the new way. But if the less energy consume way was not spreaded vastly, and the old way was still the most used method, the usage of electrcity couldn't be
                                                                ^^^electricity
siginificantly reduced. And also, when the amout of the copper produced increases dynamically,
^^^significantly                     ^^^amount
the use of the energy will surely not decline.
比第二段好点，但感觉又不太充分
Overall, the reasoning behind the expection that the amount of electrcity used by the
                                                       ^^^electricity
copper-extraction industry seems logical as presented above since the new way was founded to extract copper with a less energy consume. Howerver, before any final decision is made about the
                                      ^^^However
future energy cost in the  industy of copper, the author should evaluate all possible alternatives
                       ^^^industry
and causes beside the difference between the old way and the new one.
结尾段清晰明确，没有拘泥于套路的写法，不错不错

总结：1拼写错误较多，是由于限时紧张的缘故还是马虎呢？而且有的同一单词会出现不止一次的相同拼写错误。建议下次交作业前线粘到word里，把拼写错误自己改过来哦
而且要注意练习，虽说正是考试时，不会拘泥于拼写错误，但这样的错误太多印象分会不好。
2我在新东方上课时老师一般要求我们携无端的套路，这样结构清洗也很有条理。所以我不是很习惯这种非套路式的文章。但是很多北美范文也是这样的路线。关于这个我们以后在集体讨论下吧。
3论证段并不是很深入。并不用每个错误都挑出来，只要挑几个典型的重点攻击，每一个论证段都尽量深入一些，有说服力就行了
4 虽说字数不强作要求，但字数少毕竟会对论证的充分性有影响。新东方的要求argu在400到450。建议论证部分再充实一点。
5开头结尾段简洁有力，个人觉得很好，反正我写不出这样的哈

以上纯个人意见哈，如果有异议，我们在讨论哈

gjqfishesUID: 2229321

谢谢指点哦
呵呵 很多拼写错误都是e文打的太少造成的，键盘乱按……而且似乎我贴错了， 没有把改过的贴上来。。。
arg刚刚起步，感觉自己写的文章更没有逻辑，还希望大家多帮助

helenlhhUID: 2127690

确实思路有点乱，我来帮你理一理吧。

1、新方法省电证据不足，把你原来提纲的1，2合一段写
2、即使省电，不一定能大范围推广
3、更进一步说明如果方法好用的话大量开采同样不能减少用电量

如果按照上面的段落划分写清楚，看起来就不会那么乱了，所以不要在一个段落里面包含太多东西，否则看起来就不清晰

我们写argument第一步是找错误，找好错误之后把他们在纸上罗列出来，然后不要急于下笔，在花一点时间想一想如何组织这些错误进行批驳。有些错误可以合并在一段里，有的单独写，组织完之后一般有三个或四个独立段，基本上组织上没太大问题，否则你要想想是不是不太对。

记住、理请思路在写

helenlhhUID: 2127690

你可以去看看别人是怎么写的
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=493876&highlight=