Tough Break (再战200610G) argument提交贴

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

刚才没发上来.....谢谢大家帮我修改的作文, 我电脑坏了，今明两天可能不能及时上来交或者修改大家的作业, 但是不会很长时间的,尤其是MERCURY_TOL24, 对不起啊，我保证尽快把改你的作文发上来,因为现在只能下了拿回家在那个破机子上弄,还不能上网,会慢一点,不要着急~

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.


In this argument, the author expect that that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction will decline due to a new technology. To illustrate his viewpoint the author cites a comparation of the amount of electricity consumed between the old way and new method. However, only basing on such weak evidence could not reach a firm statement regarding future condition and this article suffers from several severe fallacies.

First of all, the author commits false analogy in proving how sufficient and effective the new method in saving electricity compared to the former one. Nevertheless, the comparation is quite unconvincing on account of its equivacation in statement concerning nothing about detailed information of background for each measuring, which is very critical in deciding true capacity of both two. Common sense tells us that it is reasonable a means of extracting material from ore will consume more energy when impurity rate is high, and vice versa. It is quite possible that 40% of saving in energy is resulted in margin between in processing low purity ore by old way and processing high purity ore by new way. Or it is also possible that the novel method is only excellent compared to its precedence when foreign matter is scant, but in the opposite circumstances, the invention would use up the same even more amount of electricity as the anterior. The latter possibility is particularly crucial for judgement if a large portion of ore used in the industry is low in proportion of copper. Thus I remain doubt about the superiority of new tech unless more concrete data is available.

Secondly, even if we grant the correctness of reasoning mentioned above, the mere fact that the new way acts well in extractiog copper does not prove the necessity of applying widely in this industry. There are many other factors executives in the field have to bear in mind, such as consideration about safety of technological process, concerns of enrivonmental issues and relative cost in changing producing method. Any inconvenience or prohibition in such matters would cause the failure the spread of new trails. What is more, companies' leaders usually tends to take action after the reliability and feasibility of up-to-date mechanism has been tested by practise, especially for heavy industry such as metal extracting. All discussion about possible outcome of a matter is in vain if whether it could happen is still unknown.

Turning to final problem of this paragraph. No evidence shows that even the quantity of energy consumption would fall in sole copper refining, the lower depletion of power in whole industry will surely occur. Maybe other working procedures need more electricity than before because of more copper could be produced thus total sum of using is arousing. Moreover, other departments also would increase their consuming because of any reasons. It is too arbitrary for the author to draw the prediction.

In a sum, the contention in statement is groundless. Before giving any comment, the author should contrast these two methods more thorough to provide accurate measurement and rule out other possibilities may influence the amount of electricity used. It is advisable to take into consideration of the feasibility of employing such an invention as well.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

一下子改了这么多，辛苦！
我回头按你的修改好好看看自己的作文，谢啦：）

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 czjsimon 于 2006-7-22 11:03 发表
170.For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly afte ...

In this argument, the arguer conclude that once the consumers in California are aware of the new process for killing the bacteria, they will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. So the Gulf Coast oyster producers will make greater profits. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is. Good beginning

First of all, does the process can make sure the Gulf Coast oysters are as safe as that of northeast Atlantic Coast? The consumers have the reason to doubt whether the process is able to kill all the bacteria. The bacteria were just found in a few Gulf Coast oysters but still feared kept the consumers feared. If the process can not make sure all the bacteria will be killed, it still leaves some risk that the consumers are unlikely to bear. Even if the process has been well developed and can thoroughly eliminate the bacteria, the consumers may still doubt whether the producers are going to adopt the process. How can they find whether the oysters have been sterilized? Why should they believe the producers, who are aim at profits and would like save as many much cost as they can? If there is any doubt left within the consumers, it is unlikely for them to believe the Gulf Coast oysters are as safe as that of northeast Atlantic Coast. Moreover, the reputation is easy easier to destroy than to regain. The Gulf Coast oysters may have been branded as unsafe production products. It may take a long time for the consumers to restore the credence on the Gulf Coast oysters even if the production has been really safe.

Furthermore, the argument doesn't provide sufficient evidences evidence that the fear of harmful bacteria was responsible for the increasing margin between the prices of oysters from the two places. Though the finding of the harmful bacteria is early earlier than the trend of the differing difference of prices, it doesn't mean the fear of bacteria is the cause. The bacteria were found just in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. It may be natural to find some bacteria in the oysters. And the bacteria may be easy to kill easily killed by the high temperature during when cooking. So the finding may have not caused any fear in the consumers. However, maybe at the same time, the consumers found the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters were much more delicious or more nutritive. If there were other possibilities which are more responsible for the trend or the finding of bacteria didn't cause any fear, it is meaningless to discuss if the new process for killing the bacteria will increase the willingness of the consumers to pay. It’s quite convincing point, but I didn’t find it. You might convert this passage to the former one so as to be more logically.

Even if all the premises hold valid and the consumers are willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as the northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters ones (avoiding redundancy), we can not conclude the producers of Gulf Coast oysters will surely make greater profits. New producers may enter the industry and the increased production will lower the price level of the entire market. The arguer doesn't notice the cost of the process for killing the bacteria, either. If the cost is very high, the Gulf Coast oyster producers may even make fewer profits from selling the sterilized oysters.

In sum, the arguer has overseen overlooked a lot of complicated factors and drawn the conclusion arbitrarily. The arguer should first make sure the fear of harmful bacteria is the main cause of the margin between the oysters from the two places. Moreover, he should be very careful and make more examinations before he concludes that the consumers will agree the Gulf Coast oysters have been safe. At last, there are too many unforeseen factors in the market; so it is difficult to make an assertion that more profits can be make made.
You have fluent mind and clear argument, and the points you select are accurate. Keep on working!

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

因为耽误了两天所以今天发了两篇， 这片是完全按照《ARGUMENT就应该这样写！》来写的，想看看写好后什么样，都来拍拍~

17The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."|

In this article, the author claims that the decision made by the town council of Walnut Grove (WG) is unreasonable and cites three evidences to support his viewpoint. For me, solely based on such fact cannot convince me that remaining contract relationship with EZ is sagacious. Besides, this argument also suffers from several critical problems as follows.

To begin with, the author only provides scant and weak fact to illustrate the superiority of EC compared with ABC. First, it is quite possible that WG is so clean and tidy that not only householders but also sanitarian department does not require disposal company to collect trash very frequently. Maybe only once a week in this matter is optional because of noise and possible inconvenience caused by collecting garbage for residents. Secondly, influx of new ordered trucks predicts little about improvement in practical work, given the doubtful usage of these trucks and the efficiency at which they would be utilized. Thirdly, the author fails to provide a qualified survey that is both accurate in expression of the true meaning of "satisfied" and in sufficient presenting relative information concerning every aspect of the investigation. For example, there might be higher level of satisfaction about the performance of ABC if they were hired. Or the 20% people left are extremely unhappy about EC's drawbacks. Lack of useful background of the reliability of the survey's outcome, it is difficult for us to accept that EC can offer better service than ABC.

Furthermore, even we acknowledge that all above fact is believable and EC can furnish excellent service for WG's community, another false assumption committed in the article should not be ignored-- the difference between the two companies' standard is worthwhile of $500 margin or the $500 increase in charge of EC is due to such enhancement. But we cannot infer from the passage about whether these assumptions are correct. It is all likely that EC also performs according on that high guidance before the change of fee for a long time if we consider the contract of 10 years. What is more, granted that these  methods of bettering service could cause some extent of increase in cost thus price, a sudden rise in 25% of original price could not be explained unless we have been submitted data regarding respective rate about benefit and cost perceived by customers of these two corporations.

Finally, there might be other reasons why town council wants to switch from EC to ABC, not about money and times they collect waste. If EC is not such an environmental friendly organization as ABC, the town council concerning most about WG's surrounding may reject the offer of EC no matter how competitive its price is. For instance, maybe EC dispose all trash by the way of burning without classification or burying in wild land, which is so harmful that has given rise to deterioration of town's neighborhood. In such condition, barely could the author's contention interest the town council and change their mind due to the different concerns of both sides.

In sum, to better valuate the suggestion in the article we need more strong support to make sure that EC does possess better capacity to serve GM than ABC or itself before. In addition, detailed revealing relating performance of cost of these two companies is desirable as well. We also should be aware of whether the true reason town council turning to ABC is connecting with its low price or good service.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

ARGU17
WORDS: 447          TIME: 0:60:00          DATE: 2006-7-24

In this letter the editor claims against using ABC Waste (ABC) but insists on EZ Disposal (ED) to give trash collection service for Walnut Grove's town (WG). His evidence is that EZ collected trash more often and has more trucks, and a survey cited shows respondents' satisfaction with EZ. But such superficial evidence will not take others into adopting his idea definitely. The reasons opposite to his claim are as following.
To begin with, the letter provides no assurance that EZ will offer service of better quality than ABC. Although EZ makes more frequent collections each week, how its workers do the collection is unknown. Probably they do not collect all trash as required, while ABC's worker can. Likewise, it is not guaranteed that EZ will use all of its trucks in the course of cleaning WG 's town though EZ owns more trucks than ABC. Perhaps the company plans to use the additional trucks in other projects, which are unrelated to cleaning the town. Moreover, the survey cited in the letter is not valid definitely in that there are no detailed information about how the survey was conducted, how many people were interviewed, what kind of districts they lived, what the percentage of the interviewees is of the local residents. If only a small part of people were interviewed and thus cannot represent the attitudes of all local residents, the survey works in vain to serve as evidence. What is more important, the letter gives no information about the attitudes of people toward $500 more of EZ price. Meanwhile, the editor shows no description about ABC. Since the town did not use the company, people have no idea of its service. It is fully possible that its workers can provide better services. Therefore, it is incredible that EZ will work better than ABC and the town cannot employ it at higher price unjustifiably.
Another problem the editor ignores is the necessary prerequisite, that is, whether the local government can afford higher-price service of EZ. If the financial situation fails to make such investment of more $500, it is impossible for the government to use EZ.
Last but not least, the letter makes the either-or dilemma since only the two companies are provided to be considered. Maybe the editor fails to include other best trash companies he never knows, which can probably do civil cleaning in low prices. Before eliminating such a possibility, the editor cannot come to his conclusion hastily.
All in all, the editor cannot convince others with the simple evidence. To strengthen his conclusion, he has to prove that EZ provides the best service and the local government is able to pay the service. Otherwise, his advice is delivered insignificantly.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 Enna_garfield 于 2006-7-21 17:11 发表
来改啊~

In this article, the author claims that Gulf Coast oyster(GCO) producers could expect more profits due to the invention of a process for killing the bacteria, which is assumed the reason ...

In this article, the author claims that Gulf Coast oyster(GCO) producers could expect more profits due to the invention of a process for killing the bacteria, which is assumed the reason why GCO is only half the price of northeastern Atlantic Coast oyster(NACO).However, this conclusion is based on a series of false assumption, each of which can weaken the whole process of deduction. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws. Good beginning with complete and accurate summary

First of all, the argument suffers from a fallacy of equivocation. According to the mere fact that a new process of killing bacteria has been invented, it is unstandable unstable to induce that consumers will be aware of GCO's increasing safety, which is the prerequisite of higher price of GCO. Whether this process is mature and ready to apply in mass production of oysters, or whether this process is effective enough to kill the bacteria that is the main reason of low quality are all things that the arguer should take into consideration to make valid argument. this sentence may be so complicated as to be wrong in the red part. Even if conditions above are granted, there provides no evidence that consumers will be convinced of oyster's quality thus to pay more. In fact, usually people do not establish any cursory trust on any food which had caused problem for a long time until the time is long enough to prove its reliability.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider other relevant factors that may influence consumers' behavior. It is completely possible that other features of NACO's, such as taste, freshness, size, even if delete it colour and lifespan etc., are true reasons why people are willing to afford higher price for them, not the bacteria instead of the bacteria responsible for it. Besides, there is also another possibility- as a matter of fact, that NACO possesses nothing better than GCO but status it presents if it is produced especially for upper restaurants. Under such circumstances, any effort aiming remove at removing the bacteria, which is totally out of customers’ consideration, will be definitely in vain, not to mention about delete it imagined raising profit.

Finally, the arguer hints that sole improvement in raw oyster is sufficient in qualifying following greater income of oyster producers, but he fails to analyze the relation between these two things. We all know that there exist numerous factors can influence products' price, especially for raw material for of food. For example, large scale of fluctuation of price in the market or exchangeable demand and supply may be included in such elements. What also could considerably affect profits received by producers is cost in the process of production. Hardly any producers can control their cost at the same level or lower or lower level after adopting new technology, which is usually expensive, compared with status beforehand. Admitted that all hypotheses above hold some truth, producers might spend a bid ? amount of money in advertisement to spread the information and convince consumers. Consequently it is wholly predictable that profit will lower rather than raise rise up.

As it stands, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does is not adequate enough delete it to lend support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning the extent to which GCO producers could apply the new creation in their production and to which bacteria could be effectively diminished. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the existence of other possible factors that may also influence buying habits of oysters and how they act in such a condition. Additionally, more detailed facts related to cost control in oyster production are also needed to reach reliable and comprehensive conclusion to guide oyster producers' activity.
I can find some grammatical and spelling flaws especially article or sigular and plural forms. Except for that, almost each point you list, especially the compound sentences, is worth my reference. :victory:

czjsimonUID: 2215612

前几天打不开这个网页，昨天终于上来了，第一篇argu，谢谢两位拍砖:)，有些错误没有人改还真的发现不了，呵呵

先按安排给mercury改下170，初次改文，不足之处，请多包涵哦

czjsimonUID: 2215612

20号作业 argument 170
In this article the author asserts that the price of Gulf Coast oysters will rise and even double to equate with that of northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. To support this statement the arguer cites the following facts (1) for the past five years consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for Atlantic Coast's oysters as for Gulf Coast's since harmful bacteria were found in a few Gulf Coast oysters; (2) A scientific process has been devised now to kill the bacteria and then consumers will realize the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. Close examination of these facts, however, reveals that the conclusion of the author is not as persuasive as it stands.

In the first place, there is no evidence to show that the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters than Atlantic Coast's is the result of the discovery that a few raw oysters had harmful bacteria. Many possible reasons besides the discovery of bacteria can explain the difference between market prices of the two sorts of oysters. For example, the oysters from Atlantic Coast might be a new specie species 貌似是单复数同形的 that people in California had never tasted before and people felt themselves having a better taste than Gulf's ones. Or perhaps five years ago the supply of Gulf's oysters increased in California while Atlantic Coast oysters had a decreasing supply in the market. A detailed survey has to be made before we conclude that Gulf Coast oysters are sold at a price half of that of Atlantic Coast oysters.

In the second place, whether the devised process can really kill the bacteria effectively is unknown, even though people paid less for Gulf Coast oysters just because they are afraid of the bacteria found in oysters这个递进关系似乎不搭配，应该是说即使人们是因为害怕细菌而不愿意买GC，这个杀菌程序也不能保证人们现在会愿意购买，因为不知道它是否有效. More scientific statistics should be offered to make the public sure that the bacteria are able to be cleaned out completely and the quality of oysters from Gulf can reach the criterion of safety. If the process was proved to function unsuccessfully, the price of Gulf Coast oysters would have to keep low or even get lower.   

In the final place, lake lack of more information about the whole market condition in California, we can not conclude curtly that the price of Gulf Coast oysters is surely to be the same as that of Atlantic's after the devising technique is applied. It is likely that five years ago Gulf Coast oysters sold at a lower price than Atlantic's and obviously, after the bacteria incident occurred, it is harder to make consumers willingly pay the same for Gulf's oysters as for Atlantic's. 这两个独立分句之间缺少连接词，或许可以这样 Since Gulf Coast oysters has been sold at a lower price than Atlantic's for five years since the bacteria incident occurred, it is harder to make consumers willingly pay the same for Gulf's oysters as for Atlantic's. In addition, without knowing the detailed sale data of Gulf Coast producers, it can not be certain that the producers will gain greater profits from their production.  

In conclusion, in order to make this argument more persuasive, more marketing data of Gulf Coast oyster producers and more information about the effect of the scientific process have to be obtained and analyzed. Besides, the arguer must offer more strong proof to demonstrate that it is the public fear of the bacteria that leads to the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters. Otherwise, this argument can not convince people successfully.

czjsimonUID: 2215612

这网页打开还是好慢，大家都是这样吗？

开始限时~~
38.The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."

本文的结论是说在西meria地区使用鱼油，可以防止感冒从而降低旷工率。
前提不一定成立，本文只说了吃充分数量的鱼可以防止感冒，所以暗含了一个前提假设，吃一种鱼油提取物可以起到同样的效果。鱼油只是鱼的一部分，并没有证据表明吃鱼油可以起到和吃鱼同样的结果，更何况Ichthaid只是鱼油的提取物。
论据不可信，东部地区因为感冒去看医生的人少，可能那里气候条件不一样，或者因为其他的原因，人口体质不一样。况且感冒了也不一定会去看医生，因此东部地区感冒少也并不是明显的事实。所以并不能得出鱼的消费量高是东部地区人感冒少的主要原因。
结论太武断，即使使用鱼油可以减少感冒，但是并不能得出一定可以降低旷工率。以前所谓的感冒也许只是旷工的一个托辞，而且使用这个鱼油会不会造成其他的副作用尚不可知。

字数：499         时间：1小时        日期：2006-7-24

In this memo, the arguer recommends that the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, will prevent colds so as to lower absenteeism. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example that the high consumption of fish in East Meria goes with the low visit rates to doctors for the treatment of colds. In addition, the arguer points out colds are the most frequently given reason for absenteeism. However, the recommendation rests on unsubstantiated assumptions and ambiguous evidences which make the argument unpersuasive as it stands..

First of all, a critical assumption in the conclusion is that Ichthaid, the nutritional supplement, has the same effect as fish in preventing colds. However, the argument does not provide any evidence this is the case. It is said eating substantial amount of fish has an effect of preventing colds. But it amounts to scant evidence to prove that fish oil, just part of the fish, is responsible for the effect, not providing that Ichthaid is just one of the nutritional supplements derived from the fish oil. Some other supplements in the fish body may be more responsible for the effect of preventing cold. Therefore, the assumption that the use of Ichthaid can prevent colds just as eating fish is hardly to be true.

Furthermore, the evidence of East Meria is problematic in substantiating the premise that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. The low visit rates to doctors because of colds in East Meria may be due to other factors. For instance, the area may be hardly assaulted by cold weathers, and the steady and mild climate is less likely to cause colds. Or the residents there may have better physical status because of much more exercises. Moreover, it is likely that people who catch a light cold would not go to see the doctor but rather stay at home and take some medicine. The low visit rates to the doctors can not directly deduced the low rates of catching colds. Thus, the evidence is not enough to conclude that the high level of fish consumption has a significant effect of preventing colds in East Meria.

Finally, even if the daily use of Ichthaid could be proved to have a significant effect on preventing colds, it is too arbitrary to draw the conclusion that the absenteeism will surely go down. Although colds are the reason most frequently given for absences, the absentees may just use catching colds as an excuse. If there are many people just use catching cold as an excuse for absence, the preventing of colds will not reduce absenteeism significantly.

In sum, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should provide more sufficient and convincing evidence to prove that eating fish can prevent colds and Ichthaid is the most important element that takes effect. Moreover, the arguer should also assure that absentees are telling the truth when they said they have caught colds.

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

原帖由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-24 09:15 发表
TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occurs ...
Strategies:
1.Whether the new technologies can save the amount of electricity. According to the argu, the amount of copper in the ore is different significa ...

（吱吱）Argument71 of July 21 assignment

TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occurs ...
Strategies:
1.Whether the new technologies can save the amount of electricity. According to the argu, the amount of copper in the ore is different significantly, that is, the same amount of ore can extract more or less copper. In this way, even if 40% amount of electricity is reduced, the amount of copper processed is not assured.
2.It is not guaranteed that the new technologies can save the energy in  producing the same amount of copper because the extracted amount of copper depends on use of different technologies and the amount of consumed electricity.(怎么觉得前两条是一个意思呢？)3.It is hasty to come to such a claim before many other situations are available. For example, the problems of cost and environmental pollution.
In a word, the author should take the applicability of the new technologies and production of copper into consideration.

WORDS: 363          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-23

The author predicts in this argument that there will be a significant decrease of electricity used in the copper-extraction industry. He provides some evidence to support his expectation, that is, a kind of new extracting technologies can save 40% electricity to process the same amount of raw ore. It seems possible to have such a tendency最好把这个趋向说得明白一点，比如inclining to consume less power in the industry, but careful consideration discloses that his prediction is ungrounded.
The threshold problem is whether the new technologies can help save the amount of electricity. 很简洁哇 As the passage says, the proportion of copper in the ore is greatly different, which means that different amount of copper will be produced from the same amount of ore. In this way, it is not guaranteed that 40% less electricity will process more or as much as copper(这个地方有点晕， 你看看是不是这样：process ore to produce same amount copper 或者 produce more or as much as copper) which the old technologies do. Perhaps 50% less copper is produced from the same amount of ore though electricity is saved, and consequently, to have the same amount of copper, it will take more electricity through the new technology. 比我论证得清楚…残念~Thus, it will not necessarily happen that electricity consumed in the industry will decline significantly.
Furthermore, there is no information to prove that the new technology will save electricity when the same amount of copper is extracted since the quantity of copper produced has influence on usage and electricity of both the new and old processes. (还是觉得和上面重了,保证用电不保证产量和保证产量不保证用电是不是一回事啊^_^)
What's more important, even if the new technology is advantageous to save the energy, it remains a problem whether it can be put into practical use. It is possible that the process costs a lot of funds to run, which makes many factories give it up. Or maybe the technologies demand other technological supports, which are out of normal reach locally. Or perhaps the process could bring a great deal of environmental pollution, which is 省略吧prohibited by the local government. In addition, even if the technologies are put into use with the problems solved (不是非常明白,当技术的问题都解决投入生产后, 技术的应用性仍然困难? ), their applicability is still difficult according to the above discussion. In this case, these or other basic problems will lead to failure of using the new technologies and the decrease of electricity will not occur definitely as the argument claims. 绿色的句子造成排比还没有重复~To sum up, this is a rash deduction.太简单了这也 To support his predication, the author should take into account of applicability of the new technology and the detailed production situation of copper.

你又是限时写的…..无语

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

原帖由 mercury_tol24 于 2006-7-22 17:52 发表
170. 请狠拍阿！！

In this article the author asserts that the price of Gulf Coast oysters will rise and even double to equate with that of northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. To support this st ...

MERCURY-TOL24  20号作业 argument 170

170. 请狠拍阿！！

In this article the author asserts that the price of Gulf Coast oysters will rise and even double to equate with that of northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. To support this statement the arguer cites the following facts: (1) for the past five years consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for Atlantic Coast's oysters as for Gulf Coast's since harmful bacteria were found in a few Gulf Coast oysters; (2) A scientific process has been devised now to kill the bacteria and then consumers will realize the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters. Close examination of these facts, however, reveals that the conclusion of the author is not as persuasive as it stands. 忘了在哪儿看到过这种数号开头啦, 觉得在这种头绪乱的时候是挺好用的~不过我以前也老喜欢把论据在开头都列出来, 现在觉得还不要仔细提的好, 因为到主体论证的时候由于没有本事多元化的改写句子,就痛苦地在那儿车轱辘话来回说…..扯远了, 嘿嘿, 个人意见, 仅供你参考啊In the first place, there is no evidence to show that the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters than Atlantic Coast's is the result of the discovery that a few raw oysters had harmful bacteria. Many possible reasons besides the discovery of bacteria can explain the difference between market prices of the two sorts of oysters (理由本身就是不一定成立的, 所以也不一定就能解释价格上的不同,也有可能就是因为那个细菌, 所以换个不那么确定的句子吧).  For example, the oysters from Atlantic Coast might be a new species that people in California had never tasted before and people felt them having a better taste than Gulf's ones. Or perhaps five years ago the supply of Gulf's oysters increased in California while Atlantic Coast oysters had a decreasing supply in the market (再打个岔, supply,demand,price是三个互相影响的因素, 减少的供应也可能是由于没人吃导致的啊, 填上demand比较清楚,比如: while Atlantic Coast oysters had a decreasing supply for an ever increasing demand in the market). A detailed survey has to be made before we conclude that Gulf Coast oysters are sold at a price half of that of Atlantic Coast oysters. (? 用why 换that)

In the second place, whether the devised process can really kill the bacteria effectively is unknown, even though people paid less for Gulf Coast oysters just because they are afraid of the bacteria found in oysters. More scientific statistics should be offered to make the public sure (to make us sure that the public are aware of ) that the bacteria are able to cleaned out completely and the quality of oysters from Gulf can reach the criterion of safety. If the process were proved to function unsuccessfully, the price of Gulf Coast oysters would have to keep low or even get lower.   

In the final place, lake of more information about the whole market condition in California, we can not conclude curtly 这词我不会, 要借鉴~that the price of Gulf Coast oysters is surely to be the same as that of Atlantic's after the devising technique is applied. It is likely that five years ago Gulf Coast oysters sold at a lower price than Atlantic's and obviously, after the bacteria incident occurred, it is harder to make consumers willingly pay the same for Gulf's oysters as for Atlantic's. In addition, without knowing the detailed sale data of Gulf Coast producers, it can not cannot be certain that the producers will gain greater profits from their production. 可以多发挥两句

In conclusion, in order to make this argument more persuasive, more marketing data of Gulf Coast oyster producers and more information about the effect of the scientific process have to be obtained and analyzed. Besides, the arguer must offer more strong proof to demonstrate that it is the public fear of the bacteria that leads to the lower price of Gulf Coast oysters.好句子 Otherwise, this argument can not convince people successfully.

昨天改的你的ISSUE, 改完就去睡了, 今天改这篇之前看见已经有人给你改了, 但是又找不到你的新的, 就又看了一遍…..表砸我….下次一定及时哈, 这次情况特殊~
另: 终于换了个能用的电脑了…..

licheewu28UID: 2131182

38.Public Health Council，absenteeism 论断
WORDS: 539          TIME: 1:10:00          DATE: 2006-7-25

In this letter the author maintains that Ichthaid (IC) is helpful to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in schools and workplaces. To validate his idea, he cites a study showing that people in East Meria, who consume much fish, visit doctors less, and the other evidence is that many people are absent for the reason of colds. Careful review into his evidence shows that his conclusion is ungrounded.
To begin with, the author fails to provide assurance of the prerequisite of his maintenance, that is, absenteeism is fully owing to colds. Though people give the reason of colds for their absences, it is possible that the reason is actually the excuse to escape from school and work. Moreover, the author claims that colds are "most frequently" as the reason of people's absence, which is invalid to convince me to believe the fact with no accurate data of frequency. Unless he gives sufficient information about the frequency of absenteeism and its realistic reason, IC can be persuaded that colds are responsible for the case.
The second fallacy in the letter is that the author assumes unfairly that East Meris people catch colds less than West Meris counterpart. Less visits of doctors do not mean that people do not or less catch colds because probably people in the place do not go to visit doctors; or perhaps they buy cold medical instead of seeing doctors. In such a case, it is incredible that West Meris people catch colds less because of consuming fish.
The third problem lies in that the author takes it as granted that Ichthiad, a kind of element derived from fish oil, helps cure the colds. Even if it is colds that lead to absenteeism in the place, it remains unknown whether IC can be efficient to prevent it. Since we do not know what percentage of IC exists in fish oil, and that of fish oil in fish, perhaps it is other elements involved in fish that take effect to treat colds. What's more, the author ignores any side effect aroused by the element. If IC could bring stomachache or other pains to cold patients, it would worsen the situation of absenteeism. Without taking these or other factors into account, the author cannot attribute the solution to the use of I.
In addtion, even if the above conditions are valid as the author assumes, using IC will not definitely benefit to West Meria people. The author makes a false analogy between the two places without considering their differences like their individual geographical circumstances, their environments and climates. If the weather varies greatly and temperature fluctuate continuously within a day in West Meria while it is calm and comfortable in East Meria, people will still catch colds easily in the former place even when they take I. For that matter, the author cannot justifiably make his claim of using IC effective.
All in all, this is a questionable argument. To strengthen his suggestion, the author should prove that colds are responsible for absenteeism and IC can treat the illness. What’s more, he has to offer information that the two places are similar in the objective environment.

[ 本帖最后由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-28 08:53 编辑 ]

zhuluUID: 2134300

[quote]原帖由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-19 14:37 发表
Thanks a lot for your comments, they are quite valuale to me.

18号的作业

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that a cooling trend in the mid-sixth century was caused by a volcanic eruption. To bolster the argument(conclusionSample Text), the author cites the surviving Asian records that mention(mentioned) a loud boom, and he/she also points out that there were no records which mention (mentioned) a flash that would be created by the collision. However, close scrutiny reveals(will reveal ) that the argument suffers some logical flaws described as following.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that no other factors rather than a large meteorite colliding or a volcanic eruption may cause a lower temperature. But that is not the case, for these two reason just can create dust which may cover the atmosphere. It is entirely possible that at that time, it is just the time(by chance置后是不是更好一些) of glacier when the activity of the sun is weak. In a word , there are lots of factors（alternatives） may lead to the low temperature, 句号and without eliminating those possibilities, the assumption of the author is dubious.

Secondly, even though  meteorite colliding or a volcanic eruption are the reason of the cooling trend, the author draws a hasty conclusion just according to（based 是不是更好呢？） some surviving records. Perhaps the loud boom just came from a  meteorite colliding, and no record of the flash does not indicate no meteorite colliding necessarily（这个用得好，我喜欢）句号, it is also likely that those relevant records were missing, have not been found, or even the people at that time thought that flash was nothing special and did not record it. Thus, without providing more evidence, the conclusion is not convincing.

Finally, the author's conclusion rests on （这个好，向你学习）the assumption that the volcanic eruption does can cause the low temperature, yet we are not assured with any convincing evidence. If one volcanic eruption can create so much dust that cover the whole earth, and if they would last long enough for the temperature got lower,（if...and if你觉得这样的句型好么？） there would be myriads of questions to ask, ]）句号so unless the author provide more evidence, I would doubt about his/her conclusion.

All in all, the evidence the author cited lend less credibility to his/her conclusion, ]）句号to better illustrate the conclusion, the author must provide more convincing evidence about the factors causing the cooling trend. To better evaluate this conclusion, we also need more details about those records and the author should check there are more factors or records.

zhuluUID: 2134300

[quote]原帖由 雨城浪子 于 2006-7-19 19:02 发表
In this argument, the assumption that the cooling of the earth climate was probably caused by a volcanic eruption is at first glance to be a noticeable conclusion（不错的表达，向你学习）. The author relies only on some limited historical facts and tried to associate those events instead of analyzing and considering the consequences of the occurring events. Close inspection of the connection of the events, reveals, however, that the linkage provides a scant support at best for the author’s argument（不错的表达，向你学习）. .

Turning first to the considered aspect in the argument, the author stated that large dust cloud covering throughout the Earth’s atmosphere would block enough sunlight to the Earth, but the author did not notice that large dust cloud can also hinder heat from escaping to the universe（这是你的推测吧，你这样盲目推测不太好吧！argu是要你逻辑的去辩解对方的逻辑错误，你这样辩解，是不是太牵强？）.中间差一个过渡句，比如there are also some other alternatives which would result in.... Large cloud has higher possibility to increase the temperature of the Earth instead of lowering the temperature, and this phenomenon is just similar to greenhouse effect.还差一句话，The effect of large cloud is sure to be a main reason for temperature lowing. It may be the reason that the effect of dust is not  powfull enough to affect the ...你说呢？

Even if the argument of volcanic eruption is valid好词, to create such dust cloud to enclose the Earth’s atmosphere and hindering sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere, it really needs a lot of dust这样说不好吧！你又在臆断！应该这样说，the dust made by volcanic eruption may be not enough to .... Even though a tremendous volcanic eruption had occurred, it should be capable and continuous to provide such myriad amount of dust, and it was not just a sudden boom of eruption. Besides, dust is heavier than atmospheric air, and it would fall in the surface of the Earth within a few days.这样说不好吧！你又在臆断！你需要去辩，而不是去臆断 To resist sunlight from piercing the atmosphere, dust should be supplied constantly for a few weeks or even a few months to lower the temperature of the Earth.  你的意思是说，灰尘会很快落下，如果要降低地球温度，那么要不断的提供灰尘才行。我觉得你好像已经辩解到了没有话说的地步了。语言表达不错，但是这一段辩解得不好啊！

Turning to another possibility赞！, if the extreme cold temperature was due to meteorite, the location of the crater caused by collision of meteorite might be located at somewhere out of Asia, e.g. North or South America. That was why Asia did not record such a bright and sudden flash. Even if the collision happened, meteorite would bring a huge amount of kinetic energy to stir up the whole climate of the Earth, extremely cold temperature would not happen, but extremely hot temperature would take place.  呵呵，不太明白你的意思了！

Turning to the loud boom, it had high possibility（good expression） been caused by earthquake. And the sound of earthquake can propagate through a longer distance on earth compared to volcanic eruption as the medium of the sound propagation of the eruption is atmospheric air. The loud boom of volcanic is local and it would not travel to a longer distance compared with earthquake wave我觉得你的语气应该改改，应该这么说The loud boom of volcanic may be local and it would not travel to a longer distance compared with earthquake wave and would be recorded by people.不过总体来说，这样辨正，不太好。作者陈述得既定事实去争论，没有太大意义。不如从另外一个角度去争辩：火山爆发的确有很大的声音，但是collision一样也有很大的声音啊，而且可能会更加的震耳欲聋！

Eventually, as it indicates that the argument and reasons given by the author are weak（good expression）. To strengthen the argument, more archeology evidences should be provided by the author（good expression）. To better access the argument（good expression）, it would be useful to use scientific simulation思维很开拓啊！ to simulate an immense volcanic eruption and to calculate the amount of dust have to be supplied, the number of days needed and the heat transfer calculation (i.e. heat provided by the sunlight and heat released to the universe) in order to lower down the Earth temperature.