Argument 208 第一篇Argument 谢谢指教，晚上回来必回改

sblbaslerUID: 175229

“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 the 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 argument, the arguer concludes that construction of new generating plants should not be necessary for an anticipation that the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase, but decreases slightly, and a experience that the past 20 years witnessed a trend that our generating plants would always met our needs for electricity. To substantiate the claim, the arguer present new technologies----- for the better home insulation and passive solar heating------ aim at reducing the energy for home heating. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a recent survey in which a trend that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufacturers are marketing home appliances is indicated. While this argument has some merits at the first glance, it is vulnerable in several critical flaws that undermining the line of reasoning.

First, if the respondents of the survey were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross section of population in that area, the result will be reliable. Diversity and randomness, however, are what the survey lacks of. It is quite probable that the respondents of the survey are all under a unfavorable living condition and they are the minority of the society. To this extent, they, of course, concern energy----consuming much more than those who live a normal living condition. Thus their views are not representative.

Second, the arguer simply equates energy-efficient with energy which is unwarranted. Anyone who has learned physics will be aware of the fact that “efficient” means a machine with high efficiency can produce more amount of energy than that with low efficiency at the same amount of energy provided which is not true when the energy provided is not identical. So it is very likely that even with the promotion of high efficiency one still consumes more energy in a time, such as a month.

Moreover, the arguer commits a fallacy of “begging the question” in unfairly assuming that new technologies can reduce the energy of the area. The arguer dose not supply any statistic or something else can really demonstrate that the energy decreases, if any, owning to the utilization of new technologies. There is no denying that the new technologies have contribution to the reduction of the energy, the total energy of the area, however, is not necessary to decrease because of the possibility that the consuming increasing in other fields.

Granted that the survey and assumption the arguer supplies are reliable, the argument that the total amount of electricity will decrease is unfounded. As the arguer says, the respondents of the survey regardless of its diversity and randomness are homeowners who does not consume the largest part of the electricity. By contrast, the factories should take the responsibility. So even the electricity the homeowners consumes decreases, neither the total electricity, nor the total energy.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands owning to a unrepresentative survey and unfounded assumption. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the survey covers a diverse cross section of population and are done randomly; To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the amount of energy needed by both the industry and the normal life will decrease and there will be no new need to be met.

ponponUID: 181304

In this argument, the arguer concludes that construction of new generating plants should not be necessary for an anticipation that the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase, but decreases slightly, and aan experience that the past 20 years witnessed a trend that our generating plants would always met our needs for electricity. To substantiate the claim, the arguer present new technologies----- for the better home insulation and passive solar heating------ aim at reducing the energy for home heating. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a recent survey in which a trend that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufacturers are marketing home appliances is indicated. While this argument has some merits at the first glance, it is vulnerable in several critical flaws that undermining the line of reasoning.
想说得是第一段过长，考试的时候如果只写这段就会占用大量时间，没时间写主体了
First, if the respondents of the survey were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross section of population in that area, the result will be reliable. Diversity and randomness, however, are what the survey lacks of. It is quite probable that the respondents of the survey are all under a unfavorable living condition and they are the minority of the society. To this extent, they, of course, concern energy----consuming much more than those who live a normal living condition. Thus their views are not representative.
这个理由好像不是很合适，可以说although these appliances are twice as en.. as those sold a decade ago, but the forms of .. becomes more and more, such as computer, microwave oven.......

Second, the arguer simply equates energy-efficient with energy which is unwarranted. Anyone who has learned physics will be aware of the fact that “efficient” means a machine with high efficiency can produce more amount of energy than that with low efficiency at the same amount of energy provided which is not true when the energy provided is not identical. So it is very likely that even with the promotion of high efficiency one still consumes more energy in a time, such as a month.

Moreover, the arguer commits a fallacy of “begging the question” in unfairly assuming that new technologies can reduce the energy of the area. The arguer dose not supply any statistic data or something else whichcan really demonstrate that the energy decreases, if any, owning to the utilization of new technologies. There is no denying that the new technologies have contribution to the reduction of the energy, the total energy of the area, however, is not necessary to decrease because of the possibility that the consuming increasing in other fields. good

Granted that 形成递进，很好the survey and assumption the arguer supplies are reliable, the argument that the total amount of electricity will decrease is unfounded. As the arguer says, the respondents of the survey regardless of its diversity and randomness are homeowners who does not consume the largest part of the electricity. By contrast, the factories should take the responsibility. So even ifthe electricity the homeowners consumes decreases, neither the total electricity, nor the total energy.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands owning to a unrepresentative survey and unfounded assumption. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the survey covers a diverse cross section of population and are done randomly; To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the amount of energy needed by both the industry and the normal life will decrease and there will be no new need to be met.
相信在半小时内很难完成这篇文章，所以我们都需要练速度

sblbaslerUID: 175229

谢谢！我也觉得有点长，多了10分钟，而且有点模式话，晚上回来给你改！