argument71 BHN

bhnUID: 2177959

71Copper 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.



In this argument, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw one. However, the argument suffers some serious flaws in logical.

First, the arguer falsely assumes new technologies could save electrucity greatly. Admitedly, new technologies could save electricity up to 40 percent in extracting the same amount of raw ores.However, the porpotion of copper contained  in raw ores varies greatly, it is entirely possible that the comparion of new and old technologies is made under the condition of using different propotion of ores. If so, it is open to doubt that new technologies can save the same amount of electricity  when processing ores contains the same amount of copper. Further, to judge if new technologies use less electricity than the old technologies, the amount of electricity should be measured under the condition that the same amount of ore is extracted using ores of the same porpotion of copper when old and new technologies are used respectively. Obviously , the contrast between of old and new techonologies made by the arguer is not convincing.



Even assuming that new technologies could lower the use of electricity by a great amount， it is still open to doubt that how many companies will use new technologies. Perhaps most of the companies will refuse to by those new technologies because they are expensive and the extra money they spend on new technologies could offset the electricity saved, and thus the cost of companies will rise. Or perhaps new technologies are not mature; using new technologies will cause serious pollution. If so, the government and the society will oppose companies to using those new technologies.

Last but no least, even companies using new technologies, the conclusion must depend on another assumption that the amount of copper extracted does not increased. However, the arguer provides no information concerning the market. Perhaps demand of copper is increasing greatly, thus companies will expand their production. In this way, perhaps, the increased amount of copper extracted will using more electricity than the electricity saved by new technologies.

In sum, the argument is not well established. To better bolster it, the arguer must provided evidence that new technologies will be widely used and they really could saved great amount of electricity in extracting all propitiations.
In addition, information about the market must be provided.

微末三月UID: 205072

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that those new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw one. However, the argument suffers some serious flaws in logical.

First, the arguer falsely assumes new technologies could save electrucity greatly. Admitedly, new technologies could save electricity up to 40 percent in extracting the same amount of raw ores. However, the porpotion of copper contained  in raw ores varies greatly, it is entirely possible that the comparion这个词想写什么?以至于后面没看懂.. of new and old technologies is made under the condition of using different propotion of ores. If so, it is open to doubt that new technologies can save the same amount of electricity  when processing ores contains the same amount of copper. Further, to judge if new technologies use less electricity than the old technologies, the amount of electricity should be measured under the condition that the same amount of ore is extracted using ores of the same porpotion of copper when old and new technologies are used respectively. Obviously , the contrast between of删 old and new techonologies made by the arguer is not convincing.

Even assuming that new technologies could lower the use of electricity by a great amount， it is still open to doubt that how many companies will use new technologies. Perhaps most of the companies will refuse to by(什么意思?)those new technologies because they are expensive and the extra money they spend on new technologies could offset the electricity saved, and thus the cost of companies will rise. Or perhaps new technologies are not mature; using new technologies will cause serious pollution. If so, the government and the society will oppose companies to using those new technologies.觉得这一段还可以多写,还有很多可能性啊

Last but no least, even companies using new technologies, the conclusion must depend on another assumption that the amount of copper extracted does not increased. However, the arguer provides no information concerning the market. Perhaps demand of copper is increasing greatly, thus companies will expand their production. In this way, perhaps, the increased amount of copper extracted will using more electricity than the electricity saved by new technologies.这一段的论点完全可以,可能是句子的说法不是很好,以至于论证显得欠缺一些.挑不出毛病,只是感觉

In sum, the argument is not well established. To better bolster it, the arguer must provided evidence that new technologies will be widely used and they really could saved great amount of electricity in extracting all propitiations.
In addition, information about the market must be provided.

这篇文章有凑数的嫌疑啊,字数应该不太够.错别字没先检查过吧,导致我理解有困难.
整体论证还可以,只不过句子排列顺序和说法不太恰当,使得论证减色...

bhnUID: 2177959

写的时候只顾限时了，以至于没有办法想太多。以后应该会好些，一定仔细检查一下。