argu82<sticking on作文小组>提纲作业贴

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

argu82
The following appeared in a letter to an editor. “In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument, the arguer advocates that wood as primary fuel will cause healthy and environmental problems,and suggest to use charcoal without experiencing economic hardship.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that adequate charcoal are supplied in the areas where people use wood as their primary fuel. The arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that charcoal is better than wood in avoiding healthy problem. The arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption, charcoal smoke may cause respiratory and eye problems too.

The last but not the least important, the arguer assumes that charcoal is better than wood in protecting environment problem, and no evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. Manufacturing charcoal by burning wood may also cause great harm to the environment.

lovelyzhouyangUID: 2766377

A82.


1.未给出使用木材国家及木材真正所排放的烟量，在做碳中排放烟污染，碳、木烟是否一样，碳烟危害大？


2.作者只说同样的木头和同样的碳比，碳热量高，但未说明那些碳是由多少木头制成，也会森林减少


3.作者没说碳燃烧产物的污染，其他能源比碳更好

thu_goabroadUID: 2979797

Argument 82 木材换焦炭

The author recommend that people using wood as their primary fuel can switch to charcoal, experiencing no economic hardship. Not only are their health improved, but also the environment is preserved.

In the first place, as the author said, since the charcoal is made by wood, how can it reduce the consumption of wood and then prevent deforestation? The author failed to inform us that whether the charcoal can enhance the wood's efficiency as a kind of energy material.

In the second place, there is not a shrew of evidence that the charcoal can actually contribute to pollution abatement. We need more data about the amount of gas emitted into the air in the process of converting wood to charcoal.

The last but not the least important, even if assumpting that charcoal costs only slightly more than wood, does it mean that people who switch to chacoal can really avoid suffering from economic hardships? As we all know, quite a number of wood users are poor people living in poverty-stricken mountainous areas who chop wood free of charge. Obviously, they cannot afford the addtional expense of charcoal.

Suggestion: conduct a thorough and meticulous survey about the predominance of charcoal compared to wood and the situations of the users of wood, analyze and evaluate validity and feasibility of his or her recommendation scrunizingly and reasonablely.