摒弃了所有模板的argument208 大家给点意见吧 后天考 必回！

earthpeopleUID: 182149

------题目------ argument 208 共用时间：30分21秒     587 words

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------
The arguer anticipate that the total demand for electricity will decrease because the homeowners in the area are eager to conserve energy. But the aruger ignored other factors that also will contribute to an increase in the demand of electricity.

First, whether the survey is valid is highly sceptible. Whether the sample is big enough and whether it can represent the overall inclinations in this area are not known. Suppose that the people who answered the survey are happened to be those who are concerned with the preservation of energy, then the result of the survey is useless because it cannot represent the opinions of the majority.

Granted that the survey is conducted in a valid procedure and the result is reliable, there is no guarnatee that the demand of energy will decrease. Note that there are various kinds of energy, such as electiric energy, water energy,etc. Although homeowners are increasingly eager to save enery, we are not informed which kinds of energy they are ready to preserve. Maybe this area is short of water supply, then the majority of residents are eager to preserve water energy in this area but not the electric energy.

Likewise, if we accept that the residents are willing to conserve electric engery and the fact that many manufacturers are marketing more engery-efficient home appliances, we still cannot insure that the demand of electricity will not increase. First, perhaps the living standard of this area is very low and the residents here cannot afford to buy the new energy-saving facilities. If that is the case, the amount of electricity demanded will stay the same. Second, even if residents of this area can afford to buy the new machines, maybe the population of this area at present is more than tenth as much as a decade ago. Then, although the demand of electricity of each famility may decrease, the total amount of electricity consume may increase dramatically due to the increasement of the population.

In addtion, although we are informed that new techonologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating, there is no guarnatee that these technologies can appy to the situation of this area. For example, it is likely that this area locates in a mountainous district and it is rainning all year long and the sun hardly appears. Then the solar heating equipment  maybe cannot be utilized in here because there is not sufficient sun light. And it is just as likely that the average temperature of this area is approximately 30 degree, and it is no use for home heating facilities in this area.

Finally, the three electric generating plants mentioned in the argument that have been in operation for 20 years may not meet our needs in the future. If we suppose that the demand of electricity will increase instead of decrease and the load of the plants are already in its maximum, then they surely  cannot meet our needs. If we assume that the demand of electricity will not increase, maybe the plants are been used for two long and its generating efficiency is a lot lower than that of the past. In that case, they still may not meet our needs. Therefore, construction of a new generating plants may be necessary.

In sum, the anticipation and recommendation  of the argument are not well reasoned. Unless we get more information of the residents of the area and the status of plants of the area, holding the same conclusion maybe misleading.

boyjimUID: 125249

注意发贴格式~

candybonUID: 194801

The arguer anticipate that the total demand for electricity will decrease because the homeowners in the area are eager to conserve energy.我不知道要不要把问题都写清楚, 他还提到新技术等原因 But the aruger ignored other factors that also will contribute to an increase in the demand of electricity.

First, whether the survey is valid is highly sceptible sceptical. Whether the sample is big enough and whether it can represent the overall inclinations in this area are not known. Suppose that the people who answered the survey are happened to be those who are concerned with the preservation of energy, then the result of the survey is useless because it cannot represent the opinions of the majority.

Granted that the survey is conducted 顺承写法,不错in a valid procedure and the result is reliable, there is no guarnatee that the demand of energy will decrease. Note that there are various kinds of energy, such as electiric energy, water energy,etc. Although homeowners are increasingly eager to save enery, we are not informed which kinds of energy they are ready to preserve. Maybe this area is short of water supply, then the majority of residents are eager to preserve water energy in this area but not the electric energy.

Likewise, if we accept that the residents are willing to conserve electric engery and the fact that many manufacturers are marketing more engery-efficient home appliances, we still cannot insure that the demand of electricity will not increase. First, perhaps the living standard of this area is very low and the residents here cannot afford to buy the new energy-saving facilities.我觉得这个理由有点牵强,呵呵 If that is the case, the amount of electricity demanded will stay the same. Second, even if residents of this area can afford to buy the new machines, maybe the population of this area at present is more than tenth as much as a decade ago. Then, although the demand of electricity of each famility may decrease, the total amount of electricity consume may increase dramatically due to the increasement of the population.

看到这里,我确定你在第一段写的因该提一下技术evidence
In addtion, although we are informed that new techonologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating, there is no guarnatee that these technologies can appy to the situation of this area. For example, it is likely that this area locates in a mountainous district and it is rainning all year long and the sun hardly appears. Then the solar heating equipment maybe cannot be utilized in here because there is not sufficient sun light. And it is just as likely that the average temperature of this area is approximately 30 degree, and it is no use for home heating facilities in this area.

这点是不是也要在前面提一下阿?
Finally, the three electric generating plants mentioned in the argument that have been in operation for 20 years may not meet our needs in the future. If we suppose that the demand of electricity will increase instead of decrease and the load of the plants are already in its maximum, then they surely cannot meet our needs. If we assume that the demand of electricity will not increase, maybe the plants are been used for two long and its generating efficiency is a lot lower than that of the past. In that case, they still may not meet our needs. Therefore, construction of a new generating plants may be necessary.

In sum, the anticipation and recommendation of the argument are not well reasoned. Unless we get more information of the residents of the area and the status of plants of the area, holding the same conclusion maybe misleading.

总体感觉论证挺强的,逻辑很清晰,我也写了这片,和你的没法比,你帮派派.

*********************argument 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.'

************************************************************************
Well-represented and seemly logical though at the first glance that the electric power company need not start the construction of the new generating plants by the conclusion that the existent three generating plants would meet the anticipating constant even decline demand for electricity with the evidences that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and the new feature of energy-efficient the new machines and new technologies possess of. While, the argument can hardly stand up to any scrutiny for its several apparent flaws.

To begin with, there does not exist a causal relationship between the tendency of decline demand for electricity and the people's desire for conserving energy. Perhaps just the demands for more energy support that inspire the need for conservation of electricity of homeowners. Or with the increasing fee for electricity per degree, people were force to use the energy more efficiently than ever before. Moreover, under the consciousness of saving energy in each part without noticing that the overall parts of life that need the support of electricity are increasing the whole demand of the energy are tend to increase.

Second, also mere the fact that the boom of new generation of machine and technology characterized by energy-efficient as a decade ago could hardly necessary conclude the constant or decline tendency of the demand of the electricity. On the one hand, with the development of society and knowledge more and more kinds of machines were given birth to, such as video, personal computer and auto washing machine. Though the decline cost of energy in each kind of machine, the whole cost of them would likely to increase. On the other hand, admitted that the many kinds of machines are almost twice as energy-efficient as a decade ago, some others, which is used more common like cooking machine would cost the same or even more with the improving life condition of contemporary people.

Finally, we cannot arbitrarily assert that the existent three electric generating plants which always meet our needs in the past 20 years would satisfy our future demand. Perhaps, there exist some potential problems in the three plants running for 20 years, which once occur would cause serious consequences without the reserve plant. Moreover, since the plant would serve as long as 20 years, to begin a project of new plant would meet the future demand even if many years later.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions and ill-logical reasoning that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence that overall demand of energy demand of homeowner actually decrease and the development of energy-efficient machine will truly work to reduce the overall cost. To better assess the recommendation, we need to know feature of electric generating plants.
还有限时写的一篇https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=262517

earthpeopleUID: 182149

首先感谢candybon
我非常同意你对我的开头的看法，其实限时写完后自己再读的时候就觉得特别别扭，想修改可是帖子已经发出去了。现在大多数同学写的argument都是用的那一成不变的模板，尤其是开头和结尾。但是大家却忘记了去研究对我们来说最重要的东西--官方范文！！！ 我们可以看到绝大部分的6分范文的开头都是开门见山的，而不是向模板那样的概述试的开头。正如pp3说明文件中写到:[ Do not spend a lot of time summarizing the argument unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. Readers know which argument topic you were assigned.]
已经说的清清楚楚，但不知道为什么还是有那么多同学用那套八股模板。 我这次就是为了摒弃掉模板而写的，但是就出现了你所发现的问题－－开头结尾不知道该写什么了！
这篇是我限时作文中写的字数最多的一次587，但结尾却时间不够，所以很仓卒的写上了一句话。从我这次的经验来看，我在后天考试中也许会采取先写中间，后写开头结尾的方法，这样能够保证充分的批驳，毕竟开头结尾并不太重要。
    下面是我对你的文章的一点看法，希望对你有帮助！ 那篇限时的等我8号回来再改吧！


Well-represented and seemly logical though at the first glance that the electric power company need not start the construction of the new generating plants by the conclusion that the existent three generating plants would meet the anticipating constant even decline demand for electricity with the evidences that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and the new feature of energy-efficient the new machines and new technologies possess of.[第一句话太复杂了，我觉的倒是不如拆开写显得清楚，记住argument并不是考察我们运用长难句的能力，只要语言顺畅就可以了。你看这样写行不行：This argument is well represented and seemly logical at first glance. The arguer recommends that the electric power company need not start the construction of the new generating plants due to the anticipating constant and even declining demand for electricity. 但这样一来就又成了模板开头了]   While, the argument can hardly stand up to any scrutiny for its several apparent flaws.

To begin with, there does not exist a causal relationship between the tendency of decline demand for electricity and the people's desire for conserving energy. Perhaps just the demands for more energy support that inspire the need for conservation of electricity of homeowners. Or with the increasing fee for electricity per degree, people were force to use the energy more efficiently than ever before.[这里的观点很好，我没有想到。但是要注意是否能够支持自己目前的驳斥点。 我觉的你这里的驳斥点是说用电量有可能要上升而不是下降，但是尽管可能电费上涨了、供电不足了，这并不一定保证用电量有可能上升，因为可能电费是限制人们用电的一种手段。如果你把这个观点用到最后那段，因为有可能是供电不足导致人们要节约用电，我们更需要去新建电站。或是在这里加上这么一句，我觉得更好] Moreover, under the consciousness of saving energy in each part without noticing that the overall parts of life that need the support of electricity are increasing the whole demand of the energy are tend to increase.

Second, also mere the fact that the boom of new generation of machine and technology characterized by energy-efficient as a decade ago could hardly necessary conclude the constant or decline tendency of the demand of the electricity. On the one hand, with the development of society and knowledge more and more kinds of machines were given birth to, such as video, personal computer and auto washing machine. Though the decline cost of energy in each kind of machine, the whole cost of them would likely to increase.[前面这句话语法有点问题，可改为：Although some kinds of machine maybe more engery-saving, others maybe a lot more engery-consuming and the overall consume of energy would probably increase.] On the other hand, admitted that the many kinds of machines are almost twice as energy-efficient as a decade ago, some others, which is used more common like cooking machine would cost the same or even more with the improving life condition of contemporary people.

Finally, we cannot arbitrarily assert that the existent three electric generating plants which always meet our needs in the past 20 years would satisfy our future demand. Perhaps, there exist some potential problems in the three plants running for 20 years, which once occur would cause serious consequences without the reserve plant. Moreover, since the plant would serve as long as 20 years, to begin a project of new plant would meet the future demand even if many years later.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions and ill-logical reasoning that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence that overall demand of energy demand of homeowner actually decrease and the development of energy-efficient machine will truly work to reduce the overall cost. To better assess the recommendation, we need to know feature of electric generating plants.

另外，还有其他的一些可驳斥的地方可以参考我的文章，大家取长补短。 先写到这儿，要去准备了。：）