108.The following appeared in a Brenton newspaper.
"The Brenton power plant draws water from Scott's River for its cooling system and releases the warmed water back into the river. The town council recommends that the plant install a more efficient cooling system that uses less water, claiming it will be more environmentally sound. However, in Uptown, where the new system is used, a study found that the complex network of pipes in the new system tends to accumulate algae. The build up of algae can be avoided by scrubbing the pipes, which is costly, or by adding an herbicide to the water in the pipes to prevent algae accumulation. But water containing the herbicide cannot be released back into the river and it is known that low water levels can harm river ecosystems accustomed to higher levels. Therefore, Brenton power plant should continue to use the old cooling system exclusively."
1.在uptown里的new system不能说明什么，居民区不能和工厂比较，也许algae是sewage产生的。
2.accumulate algae 又怎么样，没有说不好
是对环境不好
还是对设备不好。
3.colstly上说也许老设备费电效率低，与之相比较那个更省钱。也许cooling效果更好一些，就算BRENTON回放的水少了也不能证明water level会下降。
This argument seems at first glance, which holds the idea that instead of exchanging for a new cooling system, Brenton power plant should continue to use the old one exclusively, to be illogical. After careful and thorough consideration, several flaws appears in this argument.
To start with, the passage argues that it would be unwise to use the new cooling system because it costs a lot. And the statement gives some reasons why this new water cooling system is expensive.
Firstly, it says that although the new system will improve the environmental problem , but it tends to accumulate algae according to the example in uptown, which would cost a lot to eliminate the algae. However, the experiment taken in the uptown couldn’t represent the circumstance of the Brenton power plant. And it is unreasonable to conclude that the algae is the product of the new system. According to the passage, the new system used in the uptown caused some problem that it accumulated algae. However, this new system may not be the only reason that leads to the trend. It is possible that the sewage including huge amount of bacteria and organisms from the uptown accumulated the algae rather than the new water cooling system. In the contrast, the water come from Brenton power plant may be much cleaner than that from the uptown. As a result, the Breton power plant may not meet with the same problem as the uptown did.
Secondly, even supposing the new system will bring the algae, the passage doesn’t provide enough evidence to prove it that the algae is harmful. Nobody will know what the influence will the algae have. Would it break the ecological balance in the river or just break down the pipes of this new system? Maybe it will ruin the living environment of some fishes. Maybe it make the river seem to be disgusted. Maybe it is harmful to people’s health. Maybe it could spoil the pipes in amazing speed. However, the author didn’t prove it that it is necessary for the algae to be get rid of. So it may happen that the plant could take use of this new system without thinking of the money.
Finally, although to use the new system will cost the plant much money if it really have to get rid of the algae, it doesn’t mean that the new system will cost more compared with the old one. The new system may make the plant spend money on the algae problem without other troublesome. While the old one may cost much more for it requires more energy, more stuff and more repairing fees. All in all, the new system may cost Brenron power plant less than the old in total.
As mentioned above, this argument which seems to be logical at first is not rational. It could be improved by providing enough convicting evidences that the correlation is indeed a casual relationship-- that the plant should not use the new system for it accumulates algae.
| 欢迎光临 寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/) | Powered by Discuz! X2 |