寄托天下
查看: 1381|回复: 0
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[a习作temp] argument 208 【第一次发帖,望板上各位指教~bow】 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望
1
寄托币
107
注册时间
2010-2-20
精华
0
帖子
2
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-8-13 23:06:52 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览
本帖最后由 lime_kimi3721 于 2010-8-16 18:39 编辑

TOPIC: ARGUMENT208 - The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company.

"Several recent surveys indicate that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, that are almost twice as energy-efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, we anticipate that the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase, and may decline slightly. Since our three electric generating plants in operation for the past 20 years have always met our needs, construction of new generating plants should not be necessary."
WORDS: 379
TIME: 00:29:39
DATE: 8/16/2010 5:33:16 PM


From the passage, it is not difficult to discover the clear line of reasoning by the author. Claiming that homeowners would conserve more energy for new appliances and technologies, the author anticipate a decline in the total demand for electricity, and finally reach at a conclusion which disprove the necessity of new generating plans. While the proposal appeared to be reasonable, the inherent logical flaws during the deduction of the passage are not difficult to observe.

First, the assumption that electricity consumption of homeowners would decline is unconvincing. Even the survey can truly represent a popular inclination towards energy conservation, it may not lead to a corresponding result. A wise homeowner will not take only the cost of energy conserved but also of those applicants or new technologies into consideration. Therefore, no matter how energy-efficient the new refrigerators or solar water heaters are, they would not be adopt by families if they were too expensive for them to afford. Under such circumstance, the expected decline for electricity cannot be guaranteed.

Moreover, it is quite absurd for an electric power company to ignore the other consumers of electricity. Factories of heavy industries, shopping malls in downtown area of a city, governments and universities are all big consumers of electricity. In fact, the electricity used by normal citizens takes usually only a small part compared to that of other places. Therefore, an increase in all other electric consumers would possibly offset, or even surpass the decline in home owners.

Despite of all the flaws mentioned, the final conclusion is still questionable. While 20 years is definitely not a short time, there is great possibility that the old plants could have already suffered from malfunction and need to be renewed. Moreover, construction of new plant would be more efficient, thus reduce the expenditure of coal or other fuel used. Future needs should also be taken into consideration.

To conclude, the argument consists of quite a number of fallacies with any one of them may lead to the meaninglessness of the conclusion. Only after more careful investigation of some inexplicit prerequisite of the proposal, like the percentage of home owners among all electric consumers, or the scrutiny of the old plants, would lead to a more reasonable and feasible result.

已有 1 人评分声望 收起 理由
steveDavis + 1

总评分: 声望 + 1   查看全部投币

回应
0

举报

RE: argument 208 【第一次发帖,望板上各位指教~bow】 [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
argument 208 【第一次发帖,望板上各位指教~bow】
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1138712-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
进群抱团
25fall申请群
微信扫码
小程序
寄托留学租房小程序
微信扫码
寄托Offer榜
微信扫码
公众号
寄托天下
微信扫码
服务号
寄托天下服务号
微信扫码
申请遇疑问可联系
寄托院校君
发帖
提问
报Offer
写总结
写面经
发起
投票
回顶部