argument071 [米国有米] 2.9

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

ARGUMENT71 -
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.


By generally comparing the two methods for copper extracting, the author of the argument draws the conclusion that the electricity used for the copper-extraction industry is going to decline significantly. Based on dubious evidence and illogical reasoning, the assertion is far from perfect.

To begin with, without detailed evidence about the new copper-extracting technologies, we have good reason to doubt whether the new technologies are applicable to all the copper-extraction regions. If, for example, the new technologies call for special conditions, say very experience devices which are beyond the reach of most factories, then the new technology may not prevail in the industry as a whole. Besides, if the new technology make use of the water forces of large rivers or the solar energy, then areas with few rivers or little sunshine may not be able to set up such technologies even they declare to be economic in electricity expense.

Further more, even if the new technologies are applicable, it is still questionable whether they can really save electricity. As is mentioned above, the new technologies can save 40% electricity especially when the proportion of copper is high. The question is: what is the copper proportion in the core is low? The argument gives no clear information about it. What's more, as we all know, copper is a sort of limited natural resource. The more copper explored, the less it remains. When the total proportion of copper in ore declined to a very low percent, electricity needed may increase so dramatically that the new technologies may be of little effect to reduce the total amount of electricity consumption. Therefore, without taking these into account, the author's assertion needs to be reconsidered.

In addition, if we concede that the new technologies are effective in lowing the cost of electricity for copper extraction, the conclusion, that the amount of the electricity used by the whole industry will decline, remains dubious. As for the industry as a whole, it is highly possible that electricity is used in many other ways despite the process of copper extraction. If the copper extracted by the new technologies is not pure enough, other measures may be needed which may cost lots of electricity. Besides, if other steps going along with the new technologies call for much more electricity-say 80% more-- than the old ones, the amount of electricity may increase rather than decline. Without ruling out such and other possibilities, the conclusion is not convincing.


After careful consideration, the author lacks both detailed evidence and precise reasoning to make a sound argument. It can be improved if the author could rule out alternatives mentioned above and provide sufficient evidence to prove that the new technologies are really effective in lowing electricity consumption.

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

By generally comparing the two methods forcopper extracting, the author of the argument draws the conclusion that theelectricity used for the copper-extraction industry is going to declinesignificantly. Based on dubious evidence and illogical reasoning, the assertionis far from perfect.
[开头简短有力，赞]

To begin with, without detailed evidence about the new copper-extractingtechnologies, we have good reason[+s] to doubt whether the new technologies areapplicable to all the copper-extraction regions. If,[后面的成分使得你的if 多余] for example, the newtechnologies call for special conditions, say very experience devices which arebeyond the reach of most factories, then the new technology may not prevail inthe industry as a whole. Besides, if the new technology make use of the water forces of large rivers or the solar energy,then areas with few rivers or little sunshine may not be able to set up suchtechnologies even they declare to be economic in electricity expense. [水力和太阳能大多是利用在发电上，怎么又放在冶炼铜上了呢]
[本段缺乏一个总结的句子来整理你的攻击点]

Further more, even if the new technologies are applicable, it is stillquestionable whether they can really save electricity. As is mentioned above,the new technologies can save 40% electricity especially when the proportion ofcopper is high. The question is: what is [what about]the copper proportion in the core[ore] is low? Theargument gives no clear information about it. What's more, as we all know,copper is a sort of limited natural resource. The more copper explored, theless it remains. When the total proportion of copper in ore declined to a verylow percent, electricity needed may increase so dramatically that the newtechnologies may be of little effect [effective] to reduce the total amount of electricityconsumption. Therefore, without taking these into account, the author'sassertion needs to be reconsidered.[本段攻击还不错呵]

In addition, [+even] if we concede that the newtechnologies are effective in lowing the cost of electricity for copper extraction,the conclusion, that the amount of the electricity used by the whole industrywill decline, remains dubious. As for the industry as a whole, it is highlypossible that electricity is used in many other ways despite the process ofcopper extraction. If the copper extracted by the new technologies is not pureenough, other measures may be needed which may cost lots of electricity.Besides, if other steps going along with the new technologies call for muchmore electricity-say 80% more-- than the old ones, the amount of electricitymay increase rather than decline. Without ruling out such and otherpossibilities, the conclusion is not convincing.
[考虑的还满周全]

After careful consideration, the author lacks both detailedevidence[你好像没有攻击他缺乏详细证据吧] and precise reasoning to make a sound argument. It can be improvedif the author could rule out alternatives mentioned above and providesufficient evidence to prove that the new technologies are really effective inlowing electricity consumption.
总的来说文章还是不错的

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

谢谢你啦！