Argument71 同主题 & 小组dicmi 第五次argument作业

dicmiUID: 183392

正文只写了两段。。:L 按照同主题LZ给的提纲

1。新老技术的比较不对等
2。用电量减少太武断

找不到第三点了。或者也可以把第2点分出来一部分当第三点（新技术不一定得到推广）

       


TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occurs in nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore, and the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Until fairly recently, the only way to extract pure copper from ore was by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. New copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Therefore, we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly.
WORDS: 440          TIME: 0:29:26          DATE: 2006-7-13

In this argument, by introducing new cooper-extracting technologies which is believed to use less electricity than previous technologies, the author asserts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. However, this deduction commits several logical fallacies and is based on poor assumptions, which in return, greatly make the conclusion inconvincible.

Primarily, the argument fails to provide exactly similar experiment situation between new and old technologies, as a result, the 40 percent less electricity is not valid. As stated in the argument, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary greatly; additional, the electricity used by different technologies largely depends on the proportion of copper in the ore. Therefore, only providing these two technologies process the same amount of raw ore, but not mentioning the proportion of copper in those raw ore, make the precondition of the comparison unfair. On the one hand, it is entirely possible that, the proportion of copper in the ore processed by new technologies is far higher than that processed by old one. In the other words, because of the high proportion of copper, it is easier for new technologies to extract copper out with less electricity. On the other hand, even though the copper are of the same proportion and the amount of ore is the same too, the amount of cooper we get at last by the new technologies is, for example, 50% of that by the old one. As a result, the 40 percent less electricity appears favorable, but actually meaningless after analysis. Lacking the equal condition for the comparison, the author cannot simply justify the result.

Furthermore, granted that the new technologies are superior to old ones, should the total amount of electricity decrease consequently?  Common sense tells us that, lots of factors may contribute to the amount of electricity. Firstly, no information is offered to demonstrate new technologies will be adopted by companies quickly. For instance, too expensive, or too complex may be the two possible reasons inhibiting the widely use of new technologies. Secondly, given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and hence people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before due to the high efficiency of new technologies, which subsequently increase the amount of electricity rather than decrease. Without taking those factors affecting the amount of electricity into account, it is too hasty to reach such a conclusion.

On balance, the unfair condition of comparison between two technologies, the incomplete thought of total amount of electricity used by the industry, both of which undermine the author's conclusion. To substantiate the conclusion, author is required to provide equal condition for comparison, and taking other factors related to the electricity used in to consideration as well.


谢谢修改，一定回拍哈哈:D

dicmiUID: 183392

自顶一下：）
同主题还有谁没有拍的，留链接我来拍哈：）

728AWUID: 2216408

In this argument, by introducing new cooper-extracting technologies which is believed to use less electricity than previous technologies, the author asserts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. However, this deduction commits several logical fallacies and is based on poor assumptions, which in return, greatly make the conclusion inconvincible.

Primarily, the argument fails to provide exactly similar experiment situation between new and old technologies, as a result, the 40 percent less electricity is not valid. As stated in the argument, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary greatly; additional/additionally, the electricity used by different technologies largely depends on the proportion of copper in the ore. Therefore, only providing these two technologies process the same amount of raw ore, but not mentioning the proportion of copper in those raw ore, make the precondition of the comparison unfair. On the one hand, it is entirely possible that, the proportion of copper in the ore processed by new technologies is far higher than that processed by old one. In the other words, because of the high proportion of copper, it is easier for new technologies to extract copper out with less electricity. On the other hand, even though the copper are of the same proportion and the amount of ore is the same too, the amount of cooper we get at last by the new technologies is, for example, 50% of that by the old one.(这个论据可靠吗？会有这种情况吗？想不明白～另外，就算这个情况存在，后面那个５０％的那句话应该是可能出现的情况吧，应该写成可能有５０％这种情况，英文我写不好，你自己看看怎么写吧) As a result, the 40 percent less electricity appears favorable, but actually meaningless after analysis. Lacking the equal condition for the comparison, the author cannot simply justify the result.

Furthermore, granted that the new technologies are superior to old ones, should the total amount of electricity decrease consequently?  Common sense tells us that, lots of factors may contribute to the amount of electricity. Firstly, no information is offered to demonstrate new technologies will be adopted by companies quickly. For instance, too expensive（不确定这样的形容词短语放在这里可否作为一个名词词原因处理？因为你后面说的是reasons，对应过来这地方也应该是名词吧？）, or too complex may be the two possible reasons inhibiting the widely use of new technologies. Secondly, given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and hence people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before due to the high efficiency of new technologies, which subsequently increase the amount of electricity rather than decrease. Without taking those factors affecting the amount of electricity into account, it is too hasty to reach such a conclusion.
（这段论证很有条理了，我就只在这段糊涂的，看你这个就明确了不少）

On balance, the unfair condition of comparison between two technologies, the incomplete thought of total amount of electricity used by the industry, both of which undermine the author's conclusion. To substantiate the conclusion, author is required to provide equal condition for comparison, and taking other factors related to the electricity used in to consideration as well.

:D在你这里学习到了两段很有条理的论证，谢谢给我的修改
:handshake

euge_013UID: 173003

In this argument, by introducing new cooper-extracting technologies which is believed to use less electricity than previous technologies, the author asserts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. However, this deduction commits several logical fallacies and is based on poor assumptions, which in return (是不是应该是in turn?) , greatly make the conclusion inconvincible.  开头不错,简洁明了

Primarily, the argument fails to provide exactly similar (这2个词放一起是否矛盾?) experiment situation between new and old technologies, as a result, the 40 percent less electricity is not valid. As stated in the argument, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary greatly; additional, the electricity used by different technologies largely depends on the proportion of copper in the ore (这点好象文章并没有说明吧 ). Therefore, only providing these two technologies process the same amount of raw ore, but not mentioning the proportion of copper in those raw ore, make the precondition of the comparison unfair. On the one hand, it is entirely possible that, the proportion of copper in the ore processed by new technologies is far higher than that processed by old one. In the other words, because of the high proportion of copper, it is easier for new technologies to extract copper out with less electricity. (这点有什么证据证明?)  On the other hand, even though the copper are of the same proportion and the amount of ore is the same too (这句罗嗦了不是) , the amount of cooper we get at last by the new technologies is, for example, 50% of that by the old one. As a result, the 40 percent less electricity appears favorable, but actually meaningless after analysis. (这个论据想的不错)  Lacking the equal condition for the comparison, the author cannot simply justify the result.
老毛病 罗嗦 论证还出现了点问题

Furthermore, granted that the new technologies are superior to old ones, should the total amount of electricity decrease consequently?  Common sense tells us that, lots of factors may contribute to the amount of electricity. Firstly, no information is offered to demonstrate new technologies will be adopted by companies quickly. For instance, too expensive, or too complex may be the two possible reasons inhibiting the widely use of new technologies. Secondly, given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and hence people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before due to the high efficiency of new technologies, which subsequently increase the amount of electricity rather than decrease. Without taking those factors affecting the amount of electricity into account, it is too hasty to reach such a conclusion.
这段论证的不错 比上段简洁明了

On balance( 这个好象是I中用的吧 这边可以用?). the unfair condition of comparison between two technologies, the incomplete thought of total amount of electricity used by the industry, both of which undermine the author's conclusion. To substantiate the conclusion, author is required to provide equal condition for comparison, and taking other factors related to the electricity used in to consideration as well. (这个为什么要说2遍呢 又罗嗦了)

总体写的不是很好 与I相比 错误找的比较少 B1的论证缺乏力度 要加强 语言继续努力

[ 本帖最后由 euge_013 于 2006-7-14 20:29 编辑 ]

dicmiUID: 183392

对于修改意见的回应：

To: YY我写的那个逻辑是这个意思：

40%是不可靠的，有两种可能性
1）新技术处理的都是纯度高的矿，而老技术是纯度低的矿。
2）即时纯度一样，但是得到的量一样不一样呢？很有可能新技术只能从矿中提炼出得50%的铜，而老技术确可以提炼出80%的铜。因此40%省电意义就不大了。

不知道你认不认可呢：）






to Euge:

赫赫
1。in return，应该是没有错的，大概意思是“反过来怎么怎么的"
2。exactly similar我写之前没有认真求证过没有没有，你说了之后我去google了一下，的确有，但是不多，可能不常用吧，还是不要用比较好的。这点谢谢提出：）
3。Copper occurs in nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore, and the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Until fairly recently, the only way to extract pure copper from ore was by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low.
这个是题目中的，也是我所说的那两个前提，第一个前提应该没有问题，第二个可能有点理解上的偏差了。那样的话就删掉那句吧。
第二段的逻辑请看上面，一样的。
4。On balance用的的确比较垃圾。。。见谅见谅，连着issue写的。。寒寒。。
5。结尾段 提出改进建议的地方罗嗦了几句。。 要改正

[ 本帖最后由 dicmi 于 2006-7-14 20:49 编辑 ]

dicmiUID: 183392

In this argument, by enthusiastically introducing new cooper-extracting technologies which is believed to use less electricity than previous technologies, the author claims that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. However, this deduction commits several logical fallacies and is based on poor assumptions, which in return, greatly make the conclusion inconvincible.

Primarily, the argument fails to provide exactly similar experiment situation between new and old technologies, as a result, the 40 percent less electricity is not valid. As stated in the argument, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary greatly; in addition, the extraction process consumes lots of electricity, especially if the proportion of copper is low. Therefore, only providing these two technologies process the same amount of raw ore, but not mentioning the proportion of copper in those raw ore, make the precondition of the comparison unfair. Simply put, on the one hand, it is entirely possible that, the proportion of copper in the ore processed by new technologies is far higher than that processed by old one. In the other words, because of the high proportion of copper, it is easier for new technologies to extract copper out with less electricity. On the other hand, even though the copper are of the same proportion, the amount of cooper we get at last by the new technologies is, for example, maybe 50% of that by the old one. As a result, the 40 percent less electricity appears favorable, but actually meaningless after analysis. Lacking the equal condition for the comparison, the author cannot simply justify the result that the new technologies are superior to old ones on electrical consumption.

Furthermore, even if the new technologies are superior to old ones, whether the proportion of local ores is high enough to use the new ones are open to doubt. Without taking the local condition into account renders the conclusion unwarranted. As we know from the argument, the premise of new technologies superior to old ones is the high proportion of copper in ore. We cannot exclude the possibility that local ores have low proportion of copper which make the new technologies useless. Consequently, no information presented here about the proportion of local ores, the new technologies are very likely useless here.

Moreover, given that both of the assumptions above are valid, should the total amount of electricity decrease consequently? Common sense tells us that, lots of factors may contribute to the amount of electricity. Firstly, no information is offered to demonstrate new technologies will be adopted by companies quickly. For instance, too expensive, or too complex may be the two possible reasons inhibiting the widely use of new technologies. Secondly, given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and hence people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before due to the high efficiency of new technologies, which subsequently increase the amount of electricity rather than decrease. Failing to take those factors affecting the amount of electricity into account, it is too hasty to reach such a conclusion.

On balance, the unfair condition of comparison between two technologies, the neglect of local situation, the incomplete thought of total amount of electricity used by the industry, , all of which undermine the author's conclusion.


蓝色的部分是修改的

加了第二段
刚发现我有个论点是属于无据推理的：即铜含量高，提取就容易。。。这个还没有改。。。
寒。。犯了arg的错误了

728AWUID: 2216408

恩,dicmi,这么说我明白了不少,不过有个建议给你,关于40%的第二点.
你说是

时纯度一样，但是得到的量一样不一样呢？很有可能新技术只能从矿中提炼出得50%的铜，而老技术确可以提炼出80%的铜。因此40%省电意义就不大了。

建议同样的意思换成这样的说话会不会好些呢?
"纯度不一样,得到的量不一样,可能COPPER一样的时候,新的比旧的费电.
个人感觉如果换成这个角度说,我们批驳的就直接指向新方法不省电了,而讨论省电的意义就要比这个批驳的稍微弱一些...个人这么理解的...欢迎讨论:D

PS.很赞你这种别人改完自己再修改的精神~向你学习~~传说中曾经有个人就是反复修改自己文章最后AW考很好呢~呵呵.一起加油~~

jallineUID: 2192970

就在原始的帖子上面改的, 因为一开始没看到下面有修正后的^^  有重复修改的地方还请包涵

In this argument, by introducing new cooper-extracting technologies which is believed to use less electricity than previous technologies, the author asserts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. However, this deduction commits several logical fallacies and is based on poor assumptions, which in return, greatly make the conclusion inconvincible.

Primarily, the argument fails to provide exactly similar experiment situation between new and old technologies, as a result, the 40 percent less electricity is not valid. As stated in the argument, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary greatly; additionally, the electricity used by different technologies largely depends on the proportion of copper in the ore. Therefore, only providing these two technologies process the same amount of raw ore, but not mentioning the proportion of copper in those raw ore, make the precondition of the comparison unfair. On the one hand, it is entirely possible that, the proportion of copper in the ore processed by new technologies is far higher than that processed by old one. In the delete other words, because of the high proportion of copper, it is easier for new technologies to extract copper out with less electricity. On the other hand, even though the copper are of the same proportion and the amount of ore is the same too, the amount of cooper we get at last by the new technologies is, for example, 50% of that by the old one. [原因呢?] As a result, the 40 percent less electricity appears favorable, but actually meaningless after analysis. Lacking the equal condition for the comparison, the author cannot simply justify the result.

Furthermore, granted that the new technologies are superior to old ones, should the total amount of electricity decrease consequently?  Common sense tells us that, lots of factors may contribute to the amount of electricity. Firstly, no information is offered to demonstrate new technologies will be adopted by companies quickly. For instance, too expensive, or too complex may be the two possible reasons inhibiting the widely use of new technologies. Secondly, given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and hence people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before due to the high efficiency of new technologies, which subsequently increase the amount of electricity rather than decrease. Without taking those factors affecting the amount of electricity into account, it is too hasty/ cursory to reach such a conclusion.

On balance, the unfair condition of comparison between two technologies, the incomplete thought of total amount of electricity used by the industry, both of which undermine the author's conclusion. ]这里可以借用alwaysbest的句式, the… the… both render… unsubstantial/ungrounded as it stands] To substantiate the conclusion, author is required to provide equal condition for comparison, and taking other factors related to the electricity used in to consideration as well.

这次的题目, 再考虑到限时写出来,已经不错了: )
句子感觉是不够精练.比如:
given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and hence people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before due to the high efficiency of new technologies, which subsequently increase the amount of electricity rather than decrease.
这里before后面突然读到一个due to, 感觉有些突兀
论证上的问题见文内标注吧
加油^^

再回头看自己的, 感觉这次的argu实在写的不好.多多学习

[ 本帖最后由 jalline 于 2006-7-15 00:52 编辑 ]

dicmiUID: 183392

原帖由 728AW 于 2006-7-14 22:17 发表
恩,dicmi,这么说我明白了不少,不过有个建议给你,关于40%的第二点.
你说是


建议同样的意思换成这样的说话会不会好些呢?
"纯度不一样,得到的量不一样,可能COPPER一样的时候,新的比旧的费电.
个人感觉如 ...

;P 离传说中的还有很大差距的。。嘿嘿，不过更要学习拉

你的反驳的出发点要比我说的更为直接，赞成~~

dicmiUID: 183392

Moreover, given that both of the assumptions above are valid, should the total amount of electricity decrease consequently? Common sense tells us that, lots of factors may contribute to the amount of electricity. Firstly, no information is offered to demonstrate new technologies will be adopted by companies quickly. For instance, too expensive, or too complex may be the two possible reasons inhibiting the widely use of new technologies. Secondly, given that the new technologies are vastly adopted, and then people may produce larger amount of copper than ever before, with the help of high efficient new technologies. Consequently, it will be an increase of the amount of electricity rather than decrease. Failing to take those factors affecting the amount of electricity into account, it is too hasty to reach such a conclusion.

On balance, the unfair condition of comparison between two technologies, the neglect of local situation, the incomplete thought of total amount of electricity used by the industry, all of which render the author's conclusion ungrounded as it stands.


谢谢jalline，其实你也注意到了吧。我结尾段就是模仿的alwaysbest的。赫赫
还有那个罗嗦的句子，帮我看看这样可以伐？

jallineUID: 2192970

恩, 这样改后就好多了:)