TOPIC: 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.
The author anticipates that copper-extraction industry will save electricity significantly. To support his assertion he points out that a new extraction method has been invented which could use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method. However author's assertion is still open to doubt with some logical flaws.
To begin with, the assertion is based on a questionable assumption that new technologies will work more effective than the former one, which may render the conclusion unconvincing as it stands. The author unfairly further infer that the new way of extraction is always saving 40% when processing the raw ores whatever the proportion is high or low. In fact, new technologies work well especially when proportion of copper in the ore is high. It’s possible that when the proportion of copper in the ore is very low, the amount of electricity diminished by new method is limited. Therefore, the author needs to reassess the effectiveness of the new method in various situations.
What’ more, even if we concede the former assumption, another assumption those new copper-extraction technologies will apply into wide practice quickly also needs reexamination. Yet without information about application of the new method, such as cost, potential pollution, the requirement for workers, we could reach the conclusion that the new extraction technologies will be put into practice widely. It's equally possible that necessary new machines for new method may cost too much for factories to afford. Or the new method is difficult for workers who are used to old ways to master. Or the sever pollution might cause by this method makes it prohibited by local government unless the factories owners pay a big amount of money which could cover over the savings by energy declination. These are all obstacles for applying the new method. Without taking these cases into consideration, the conclusion that electricity used by the copper-extraction will decline can’t be arrived at.
Finally, even the forgoing assumptions are substantiated; the amount of electricity still remains unpredictable. If the new way of copper-extraction not only saves energy but also saves time and the industry raises the amount of raw ore in order to gain more copper, then the energy usage might increase sharply rather than decline. Or the electricity uses in processing raw ore could be reduced while dealing with pollution covers more energy. Yet the author provides no evidence to rule out these and other possible problems, so the assertion remains questionable.
In short, the author fails to rule out other possibilities before he asserts the declination of the electricity usage by the copper-extraction industry. To strengthen his assertion, he'd better provide evidence to testify the applicability of the new technologies and the amount of ore processed every year.作者: xmubit 时间: 2007-7-31 00:17:32
The author anticipates that copper-extraction industry will save electricity significantly. To support his assertion he points out that a new extraction method has been invented which could use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method. However author's assertion is still open to doubt with some logical flaws.
To begin with, the assertion is based on a questionable assumption that new technologies will work more effective[effectively] than the former one, which may render the conclusion unconvincing as it stands. The author unfairly further infer that the new way of extraction is always saving 40% when processing the raw ores whatever[no matter whether] the proportion is high or low. In fact[However], new technologies[may only] work well especially[去掉] when proportion of copper in the ore is high. It’s possible that when the proportion of copper in the ore is very low, the amount of electricity diminished by new method is limited[只说下降是不够的 要进一步退让到可能比原技术更耗电]. Therefore, the author needs to reassess the effectiveness of the new method in various situations.
What’ more, even if we concede the former assumption, another assumption [indicating that]those new copper-extraction technologies will apply into[will be applied into] wide practice quickly also needs reexamination. Yet [去掉 前句末尾已经转义了]without information about application of the new method, such as cost, potential pollution, the requirement for workers, we could[hardly] reach the conclusion that the new extraction technologies will be put into practice widely. It's equally possible that necessary new machines for new method may cost too much for factories to afford. Or the new method is difficult for workers who are used to old ways to master[who are familiar with the former operation methods] . Or the sever[severe] pollution might cause by this method[these methods] makes it [be]prohibited by local government unless the factories owners pay a big amount of money which could cover over the savings by energy declination. These are all obstacles for applying the new method. Without taking these cases into consideration, the conclusion that electricity used by the copper-extraction will decline can’t be [substantiated]arrived at.
Finally, even the forgoing assumptions are substantiated; the amount of electricity still remains unpredictable. If the new way of copper-extraction not only saves energy but also saves time and the industry raises the amount of raw ore in order to gain more copper, then the energy usage might increase sharply rather than decline. Or [perhaps]the electricity uses[used] in processing raw ore could [not]be reduced while dealing with pollution covers more energy. Yet the author provides no evidence to rule out these and other possible problems, so the assertion remains questionable.
In short, the author fails to rule out other possibilities before he asserts the declination of the electricity usage by the copper-extraction industry. To strengthen his assertion, he'd better provide evidence to testify the applicability of the new technologies and the amount of ore processed every year.
[写得不错 继续加油哈！！！！]作者: fainting_robin 时间: 2007-7-31 13:39:17
The author anticipates that copper-extraction industry will save electricity significantly. To support his assertion he points out that a new extraction method has been invented which could use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method. However author's assertion is still open to doubt with some logical flaws.
To begin with, the assertion is based on a questionable assumption that new technologies will work more effectively than the former one, which may render the conclusion unconvincing as it stands. The author unfairly further infer that the new way of extraction is always saving 40% when processing the raw ores whatever[no matter whether] the proportion is high or low. However， new technologies may only work well when proportion of copper in the ore is high. It’s possible that when the proportion of copper in the ore is very low, the amount of electricity diminished by new method is limited[只说下降是不够的 要进一步退让到可能比原技术更耗电]. Therefore, the author needs to reassess the effectiveness of the new method in various situations.
What’ more, even if we concede the former assumption, another assumption [indicating that]those new copper-extraction technologies will apply into[will be applied into] wide practice quickly also needs reexamination. without information about application of the new method, such as cost, potential pollution, the requirement for workers, we could hardly reach the conclusion that the new extraction technologies will be put into practice widely. It's equally possible that necessary new machines for new method may cost too much for factories to afford. Or the new method is difficult for workers who are used to old ways to master who are familiar with the former operation methods . Or the severe pollution might cause by these methods makes it prohibited by local government unless the factories owners pay a big amount of money which could cover over the savings by energy declination. These are all obstacles for applying the new method. Without taking these cases into consideration, the conclusion that electricity used by the copper-extraction will decline can’t be substantiated.
Finally, even the forgoing assumptions are substantiated; the amount of electricity still remains unpredictable. If the new way of copper-extraction not only saves energy but also saves time and the industry raises the amount of raw ore in order to gain more copper, then the energy usage might increase sharply rather than decline. perhaps the electricity used in processing raw ore could be reduced while dealing with pollution covers more energy. Yet the author provides no evidence to rule out these and other possible problems, so the assertion remains questionable.
In short, the author fails to rule out other possibilities before he asserts the declination of the electricity usage by the copper-extraction industry. To strengthen his assertion, he'd better provide evidence to testify the applicability of the new technologies and the amount of ore processed every year.