argument 208 请问这种分析可以吗？请大家给点意见，一句话也可以，祝新年快乐~~

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

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.'

------正文------
Merely based on groundless assumption and dubious evidence, the argument comes to the conclusion that the total need for electricity may not increase and we do not need more  new electric generating plants. In order to validate the conclusion the arguer presents several facts and figures as evidence. On the surface the argument seems somewhat convincing. However, its reasoning is questionable.

For of all, the survey, mentioned in the argument, lends little support to the conclusion that the total amount of electricity we demand will not increase. We are not only told nothing about the way the survey is conducted but also how well it represents the public opinions. There is no information available on the number of the people surveyed and the number of the respondents. It is possible that there are only 20 people surveyed and only ten of them respond the survey. And the ten people may all have such energy-efficient appliances. Furthermore, the arguer fails to present how much energy the appliances may use a decade ago. It is likely the appliances at that time consumed a large amount of energy, which makes the twice energy efficacy insufficient to justify the new appliances are energy-efficient. For example a refrigerator consumes 500 watts a decade ago. And now the energy-efficient one may cost 250 watts, which still uses much energy. Thus, the survey is inadequate to support the arguer's conclusion.

Furthermore, the arguer rests on the unreasonable assumption that using energy-efficient appliances may lead to decrease in demand for electricity to establish a causality. However a direct relationship does not necessarily prove that the former causes the later. There may be other factors that could have contributed the later. Contingencies such as weather, season and population may all lead to decrease in demand for electricity. For example, if it is rainy or cloudy all the time, the passive solar heating is no use without sunshine, which cannot result in decrease in need for electricity. Moreover when it is spring, people may not use air-conditioners and when it is in winter, people also may not store all their food in refrigerators. It is equally possible that people do not replace the energy-efficient appliances with their old ones, which bought a decade ago. The new appliances may expensive for them to afford. And the old ones are still good in use, which may not lead them to buy new ones. In this case, the amount of electricity may not decrease, it may keep in the same level. Therefore, the argument is insufficient for us to anticipate the need for electricity will not increase.

Last but not least, there may be other factors will lead to the high demand for electricity. It is possible that the people surveyed in the argument live in a scenic spots and there many tourists visit the town every year. With more and more tourists the three electric generating plants are not enough for the whole people. Though the three plants have met their needs for 20 years due to the population of the town keeping the same for years, it is likely other people may move to the town in the future. In this case, it is necessary to build new generating plants. Thus, the argument does not prove that the three generating plants are enough.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. In face it is neither sound nor convincing. In order to make it more plausible, the arguer should provide more information concerning whether the application of energy-efficient and passive solar heating can lead to decrease in demand for electricity and whether the three generating plants are enough for the unexpected future, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.
不知道自己分析得是否到位，请大家给点意见，一句也可以，谢谢~~~

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

捞一下，请看一下，一点意见就好，我就是想知道自己的argument分析得是否得当，谢谢~~~

圣光UID: 193720

我觉得攻击技术进步可以减少耗电时应该加上：
文中只提到了技术对于home heating所需能源的减少，但是其他的方面呢？
技术对这些方面有照顾吗？用电的大户其实是工厂等等，在这些年的发展中，
工厂的耗电情况怎么样呢？

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

谢谢圣光的意见~~~工厂这个方面没有想到，是个不错的攻击点：）