Argument71 限时未遂，超了5分钟...求拍ing~

winnie_nnUID: 2208004

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: 460          TIME: 0:35:39          DATE: 2006-7-13     

In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly, for the reason of the new technologies. This argument is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation.

In the first place, in claiming that the new technologies will save more electricity the author depends on a series of vague data which render the conclusion inconvincible. The author points that when the proportion of copper in the ore is low, the older method could cost large amounts of electric energy, and that when the proportion is high the new technologies will save more electric, even up to 40 percent. However, perhaps when the proportion is low, the new technologies will cost equal electric energy as the older method, even more than the older one. If this is the case, the author must show the ration of the ore of low proportion in all the ore.

In second place, the author fails to make a thorough analysis on extracting copper. In common sense, it is impossible that the amount of pure copper extracted from the same amount of raw ore by different methods will be distinct, thus what we are concerned with in the technology of extracting copper not only the amount of electricity but also the extracting-rate, a index which shows the amount of the copper extracted from 1 ton raw ore in a certain proportion. No where in the argument, however, is the extracting-rate of two methods is discussed. If the copper exacted by the new technologies have much more impurities, the saving electricity will be meaningless. Consequently, the author must provide statistical data about the pure-rate of the new technologies.

In the third place, the author's conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly relies on the assumption that the new technologies will be adopted by most factories. However, it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the cost of switching to new technologies is too high to afford, so most factories cannot change to it immediately. And it is entirely possible that the save money through the new technologies is smaller than the cost of purchasing the new instruments. Further more, a few factories may consider that the shift of extracting method will cause to the change of workers or the cost of training the worker to operate the new instruments. So the author must offer substantial evidence to prove that most factories will adopt the new technologies.

In sum, to better convince me the author must provide more concrete information about the new technologies, such as the extracting-rate, the electricity consumption in every proportion, and also the cost of switching to new methods.

**感谢帮忙看过的朋友，请大家把自己的链接贴到回复中，我尽快回拍：）

[ 本帖最后由 winnie_nn 于 2006-7-13 18:33 编辑 ]

winnie_nnUID: 2208004

自己顶~

lonely_natalieUID: 2228902

写好多啊，还不错

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly, for the reason of the new technologies. This argument is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation.　（赞！简洁）

In the first place, in（for吧） claiming that the new technologies will save more electricity the author depends on a series of vague data which render the conclusion inconvincible（unconvincing）. The author points outthat when the proportion of copper in the ore is low, the older method could cost large amounts of electric energy, and that （去掉）when the proportion is high the new technologies will save more electric, even up to 40 percent. （前后有跳跃性，加一句lfails to...）However, perhaps when the proportion is low, the new technologies will cost equal electric energy as the older method, or even more than the older one. If this is the case, the author must show the ration of the ore of low proportion in all the ore. （有问题，author must show...不合适，而且好象木有说完，一句结论性的话结尾直接的说）

In second place, the author fails to make a thorough analysis on extracting copper（和没说一样）.In common sense, it is impossible that the amount of pure copper extracted from the same amount of raw ore by different methods will be distinct, thus what we are concerned with in the technology of extracting copper not only the amount of electricity but also the extracting-rate, a index which shows the amount of the copper extracted from 1 ton raw ore in a certain proportion（好复杂的句子，木有看懂的说）. No where （？木有见过这样的用法，确定正确的话回复下）in the argument, however, is the extracting-rate of two methods is discussed. If the copper exacted by the new technologies have much more impurities, the saving electricity will be meaningless. Consequently, the author must provide statistical data about the pure-rate of the new technologies.（这一段不是再批逻辑错误）

In the third place, the author's conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly relies on the assumption that the new technologies will be adopted by most factories.（复述题目，不是TS） However, it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the cost of switching to new technologies is too high to afford, so most factories cannot change to it immediately. And it is entirely possible that the save money （money saved）through the new technologies is smaller than the cost of purchasing the new instruments. Further more（连起来）,a few factories may consider that the shift of extracting method will cause （lead）to the change of workers or the cost of training the worker to operate the new instruments. So the author must offer substantial evidence to prove that most factories will adopt the new technologies.　（这一段写得比较乱的说，大概时间关系吧）
　
In sum, to better convince me the author must provide more concrete information about the new technologies, such as the extracting-rate, the electricity consumption in every proportion, and also the cost of switching to new methods.

总体讲错误基本找出来了，注意不要批非逻辑错误．还是一个偶们大家共同的毛病（拍过多篇了，饿饿的说），没有掌握到论证程序的精髓，每一个错误的批驳缺乏逻辑感．
这是偶的文，请指教，表留情．
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=494296&extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 ddloveyy 于 2006-7-13 21:14 编辑 ]

渡渡鸟UID: 145880

In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly, for the reason of the new technologies. This argument is relatively sound, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation.（挺简洁的，不错）

In the first place, in claiming that the new technologies will save more electricity the author depends on a series of vague data which render the conclusion inconvincible. The author points that when the proportion of copper in the ore is low, the older method could cost large amounts of electric energy, and that when the proportion is high the new technologies will save more electric, even up to 40 percent. However, perhaps when the proportion is low, the new technologies will cost equal electric energy as the older method, even more than the older one. If this is the case, the author must show the ration of the ore of low proportion in all the ore.

In second place, the author fails to make a thorough analysis（comparison of the two method）on extracting copper. In common sense, it is impossible that the amount of pure copper extracted from the same amount of raw ore by different methods will be distinct, thus what we are concerned with in the technology of extracting copper not only the amount of electricity but also the extracting-rate, a index which shows the amount of the copper extracted from 1 ton raw ore in a certain proportion. No where in the argument, however, is the extracting-rate of two methods is discussed. If the copper exacted by the new technologies have much more impurities, the saving electricity will be meaningless. Consequently, the author must provide statistical data about the pure-rate of the new technologies.

In the third place, the author's conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly relies on the assumption that the new technologies will be adopted by most factories.（直接说有问题就行了） However, it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the cost of switching to new technologies is too high to afford, so most factories cannot change to it immediately. And it is entirely possible that the save money through the new technologies is smaller than the cost of purchasing the new instruments. Further more, a few factories may consider that the shift of extracting method will cause to the change of workers or the cost of training the worker to operate the new instruments. So the author must offer substantial evidence to prove that most factories will adopt the new technologies.（感觉第2点递进有点勉强，可以进一步说新方法提高了效率，生产更多，所以电用的更多了。。。）

In sum, to better convince me the author must provide more concrete information about the new technologies, such as the extracting-rate, the electricity consumption in every proportion, and also the cost of switching to new methods.

第2，第3段的TS不是很恰当，注意下TS的概括性
其他的挺好的～

exp03UID: 2158827

The author points that when the proportion of copper in the ore is low, the older method could cost large amounts of electric energy, and that when the proportion is high the new technologies will save more electric, even up to 40 percent.原文中不是这样说的吧，人家说：可以多处理40%的原料，尤其在原料品味高时。有点断章取义之嫌
In second place, the author fails to make a thorough analysis on extracting copper.这句话对反驳来说完全没有意义 In common sense, it is impossible that the amount of pure copper extracted from the same amount of raw ore by different methods will be distinct （will be dstinct？陈述一个事物的状态没有用将来时的道理吧。另外，由于方法不同而导致所的产品的量不同在化学专业来说是一个很commen的sense，楼主这样说反而显得你的逻辑考虑上不完整）, thus what we are concerned with in the technology of extracting copper not only the amount of electricity but also the extracting-rate, a（an） index which shows the amount of the copper extracted from 1 ton raw ore in a certain proportion. No where in the argument, however, is the extracting-rate of two methods is discussed.（no where恐怕不能在这句中充当主语把，看上去也不像一个主语从句的复合句……那为什么有两个is呢？） If the copper exacted by the new technologies have much more impurities, the saving electricity will be meaningless. Consequently, the author must provide statistical data about the pure-rate of the new technologies.
楼主跟我一样，前面两段都想说明40%这个数据有问题，可能考虑的方面不太一样。我觉得40%的主要问题出在它是相对于同样多的raw ore来说的，而不是我们最关心的产物量，那么，处理同样多的raw ore是否能在节能的同时得到与以前同样多甚至更多的产物才是入手点。
个人看法，希望与楼主讨论！
还有上一次楼主帮改了文章，一直没回改，很是抱歉，这次补上！

winnie_nnUID: 2208004

原帖由 ddloveyy 于 2006-7-13 21:09 发表
In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly, for the reason of the new technologies. This argument i ...

你给的链接链不到你的文啊...
No where 那种用法在ETS的范文里见过，应该没错：）

winnie_nnUID: 2208004

原帖由 exp03 于 2006-7-14 11:54 发表
The author points that when the proportion of copper in the ore is low, the older method could cost large amounts of electric energy, and that when the proportion is high the new technologies will  ...

1 你说断章取义那个地方我也觉得了，一会儿改改
2 No where 那句话我在范文里看的，估计应该没错吧...
3 关于40%的问题，我第二段写的是关于产量的意思，第一段主要想说作者没说清在处理不同含量矿石的时候，用电量的区别，也就是说，含量低的时候，新方法是不是还能省电没说