ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ ７１

shmilyzlgUID: 2229564

Sample Text
提纲：Sample Text
新技术不一定比老技术省电：不是基于提取相同数量的纯铜
新技术不一定比老技术省电：不是基于相同的纯度
即使省电，也不一定推广，可能该新技术的代价太高

71. This editorial concludes that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly. To justify this conclusion the editorial's author relies a fact that 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. I find this argument specious on several grounds.

First, the argument relies on the assumption that new copper-extracting technologies use less electricity than the older method in any situation. It is true that under the condition of processing the same amount of raw ore, copper-extracting technologies can save up to 40 percent less electricity than the older one. However, aiming at extract more copper from ore, we must value the two methods by extracting the same amount of copper but not the same amount of raw ore. Yet it is entirely possible that the consummation of electric energy is less by using new copper-extracting technologies to process the same amount of raw ore, while the amount of copper is largely declined, which may brings the results that new copper-extracting technologies would use more electric energy by producing the same amounts of copper. Unless the author can exactly point out new copper-extracting technologies can use less electricity than the old one, I simply cannot be swayed by the prediction that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly.

Secondly, while comparing new copper-extracting technologies and the old one, the argument assumes that in the same amount of raw ore while the proportion of copper is omitted. But the fact is that in nature, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. The performance of new copper-extracting technologies is excellent especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, while the old method's limitation lies in that the proportion of copper in the ore is low. So the new copper-extracting technologies have not solved the essential problem of the old one. We can infer that if we process the same amount of raw ore but the proportion of copper is lower, new copper-extracting technologies would not use less electricity. Since the author has not clearly state whether the new copper-extracting technologies use less electricity than the old one no matter the proportion of copper in the ore, I cannot be convinced that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline, not alone significantly.

Finally, even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, I remain unconvinced that decline in amount of electricity will occur. Perhaps the cost of changing new copper-extracting technologies would be so much that companies of extracting pure copper can't afford. Even if new copper-extracting technologies can save electric energy, the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would not decline.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide clear evidence that the new copper-extracting technologies can indeed consume less electricity than the old one. Moreover, the author would have to ensure that the new copper-extracting technologies could be popularized.