argument-208~请华丽的拍起来～不胜感激～

yvaine.jUID: 2755389

208：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."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In this memorandum, the author predictsthat the total demand for electricity in the local area will not increase anddraws the conclusion that it is unnecessary for the company to construct a newplant from the foregoing assumptions. However, I find some unsubstantiatedassumptions existed that weakens the whole argument.

In the first place, a survey was cited as apiece of evidence to support the conclusion that the total demand forelectricity will not increase. By indicating that the energy-efficientappliances are popular, the author argues that more energy will be saved by theusage of these appliances. However, the author just shows that refrigeratorsand air conditioners are almost twice as energy-efficient as they were a decadeago. What about other home appliances such as washing machine and television?Unless the author can offer strong evidence to prove that most appliances havebeen more energy-efficient, the conclusion that the demand for energy will notincrease is not convincing.

Moreover, the author also mentions some newtechnologies that are useful in saving energy are readily available. In thiscase, the effectiveness of these measures remains unknown. Furthermore, theauthor fails to take into consideration that new technologies may cost moremoney. If so, it is highly possible that the price of using these newtechnologies is too high for most homes to afford. Then whatever thesetechnologies are effective, it means nothing at all when no one can use them.

Even if all residents in this area areaffordable for energy-efficient appliances and those effective newtechnologies, it is not warranted that the total demand for electricity willremain or even decline. If the amount of residents becomes larger, the demandfor energy will increase for sure. There is no evidence to show whether thereare more people living in this area compared to last year. The possible changeof local climate can be one of the factors that affecting the use of energy aswell. If the author fails to consider such factors that will affect the totaldemand for energy, his or her prediction about the amount of electricity willbe used is doubtful.

Even if the amount of electricity usedremains the same as past few years. It is unreasonable for the author to drawthe conclusion that a new plant is not essential. As mentioned, the oldgenerating plants have been operated for 20 years, which there may produce alot of problems such as the low sufficiency and the breakage of old machines. Forsake of safety, it is a good choice to build a new generating plant.

In sum, there exists quite fallacies in theargument from the author, which weakens the whole reasoning process and makesthe conclusion very unpersuasive. It will be better for the author to reevaluateall the factors that may have effects over the demand for energy.