- 最后登录
- 2012-5-11
- 在线时间
- 136 小时
- 寄托币
- 107
- 声望
- 1
- 注册时间
- 2010-2-20
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 2
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 172
- UID
- 2767123
- 声望
- 1
- 寄托币
- 107
- 注册时间
- 2010-2-20
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 2
|
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.
|
-
总评分: 声望 + 1
查看全部投币
|