[a习作temp] Argument71 G-89 8.24作业 [复制链接]

tianrushui
UID: 207550

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1532
注册时间: 2005-4-29
精华: 0
帖子: 16

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-24 21:00:27 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument71: 402 words 30 minutes
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 arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to decline significantly. The main reason is that new copper-extracting methods can use up less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore as the old process, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. A careful examination would reveal how groundless this argument is.

To begin with, the arguer fails to convince that the new technologies could decrease the amount of electricity. It is possible that with the new technology, we need less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore. However, the copper extracted may be also less . Then, we need to process more raw ore in order to obtain the same amount of copper. Thus, the total electricity would not decline, or even increase. Additionally, as it mentioned in the argument, the new technology saves electricity especially with the ore which is high in copper. It is possible that the new technologies use as much electricity as the old technology dose to process the raw ore which contains little copper. However, the availability of the ore containing a high proportion of copper is unknown. It is fairly possible that most ore contains little copper. If this assumption is true, the new technology seems to have nothing to do with saving electricity.

Another flaw of this argument is that the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the copper-extraction industry might refuse to adopt the new copper-extracting technologies. Changing into new technologies means that the industry should update their machines, retrain their employees. All these will cost a lot. The cost may surpass the money by saving the electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry would be reluctant to adopt the new technologies. In additional, as the author mentions there are other valuable metal in the raw ore. Perhaps the copper-extracting technology could extract those metals together with copper. Meanwhile the new technologies could only extract copper. Apparently, the old technology would bring more wealth, and only need to pay a little more for electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry may be inclined to use the old technology.

To sum up, several critical flaws in the argument render it incredible. To substantiate the argument, the arguer should convince that the new technologies could really save electricity. To further substantiate the argument, the arguer should provide the copper-extracting industry's attitudes toward the new technologies.

回应
0

使用道具举报

fantasianos
UID: 207837

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 2460
注册时间: 2005-5-1
精华: 2
帖子: 8

沙发

发表于 2005-8-25 20:00:17 |只看该作者

The arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to 去掉to decline significantly. The main reason suggested is that new copper-extracting methods can use up less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore as the old process, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. A careful examination would reveal how groundless this argument is.

To begin with, the arguer fails to convince that the new technologies could decrease the amount of electricity. It is possible that with the new technology, we need less electricity to process the same amount of raw ore. However, the copper extracted may be also less . Then, we need to process more raw ore in order to obtain the same amount of copper. Thus, the total electricity would not decline, or even increase. Additionally, as it is mentioned in the argument, the new technology saves electricity especially with the ore which is high in copper. It is possible that the new technologies use as much electricity as the old technology dose to process the raw ore which contains little copper. However, the availability of the ore containing a high proportion of copper is unknown. It is fairly possible that most ore contains little copper. If this assumption is true, the new technology seems to have nothing to do with saving electricity. 最好都用第三人称，ARGU的事件本身，考生是不参与的，和ISSUE不同

Another flaw of this argument is that the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the copper-extraction industry might refuse to adopt the new copper-extracting technologies. Changing into new technologies means that the industry should update their machines, and retrain their employees. All (Both of) these will (is likely to) cost a lot. The cost may surpass the money by saving the electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry would be reluctant to adopt the new technologies. In additional, as the author mentions there are other valuable metal in the raw ore. Perhaps the copper-extracting technology could extract those metals together with copper. 合并这前后两句Meanwhile the new technologies could only extract copper. Apparently, the old technology would bring more wealth, and only need to pay a little more for electricity. Then the copper-extracting industry may be inclined to use the old technology.

To sum up, several critical flaws in the argument render it incredible. To substantiate the argument, the arguer should convince that the new technologies could really save electricity. To further substantiate the argument, the arguer should provide the copper-extracting industry's attitudes toward the new technologies.

我理解这道题和你有些不同：新技术比旧技术耗电少是总体来说的，然后强调含铜量大时尤其节省，所以无论含铜量大或小，都是新的比旧的要节约
基本上，没什么语法错误，但是感觉读起来不是很顺。短句偏多，可以可考虑合并附近的几个短句变成一个长句（直接加上过渡词稍微修改一下就可以了）。
语气方面，最好不要太肯定，更多的用情态动词或是程度副词，表示“可能”的，因为你列举的“它因”本身也只是猜测而已，不要写得好像事实一样。
逻辑错误找的还是蛮细致的，值得肯定！加油加油！！

琐碎的事情终于摆在了眼前。继续努力，成功就在眼前。。。

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报