argument 71 同主题&展翅高飞小组Seredip(火星)第二次作业

SerendipUID: 2227806

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.

Syllabus:
1.The older technology that used to extract copper from low ore does not necessarily indicate that it would also cost as much electricity in high ore. (On the contrary, the new technology may not do well in extracting low ore)
2.The author provide no evidence that which kind of ore that they are going to extract. (Clear the proportion). The conclusion is harsh.
3. (Worker's ability, the situation of the equipments.) Other factors may lead to the reduction of electricity, but not the applying of the new technology.


The well-presented argument on extracting of copper from ore provided plenty of useful information. However, the author underestimates the complexity of the practical situation; he just makes a series of harsh deduction.

First of all, the author confines his eyeshot in two specific kinds of ore---one contains high proportion, while the other low, and then comes his information about electricity cost. He mentions that old technology requires a large amount of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. But he fails to mention other possibility, whether the old technology will still cost so much energy as it does in high ore, or what is the exact definition of low? 5%, 15%, or else. Similarly, the author then provide information that new technology does well in extracting copper in high ore, but what about the low one, and what about the definition of high, and how the number 40% is measured? The author makes two same mistakes almost just at the same time, which reflect his carelessness in deduction. To bolster his assertion on the comparison of the two technologies, he must clearly define the notion of low and high, and add other information about the energy cost in different situation, using a chart, for example, to avoid logical flaws as he makes in his article.

Following the author's logic, we can not draw the conclusion that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly, even if assuming that the new technology is better than the old one on the whole. Maybe people use new technology to extract copper from low ore, but use old one for the high one; therefore, the electric energy cost may be just the same or opposite to the author's deduction. Moreover, if the new technology is used to extract more copper, the energy cost would be increase sharply. Therefore, the author should make clear which kind of ore would be used in the future, and the amount of the copper extracted, before he asserts that the energy cost would decline.

Besides, the author overlooks some other factors that may lead to the decline. It is entirely possible that the technology does not change the electric energy cost at all, but it is the improvement of worker's skill that help decline the energy cost, or it might be the situation of the equipments is improved--after repairing or lubricating or replacement of enhancement accessories. Since the author provide no information about the factors that influence the outcome of the extraction, he cannot convince me that the decline is due to the use of new technology.

Summarily, the author provides us much information to bolster his assertion, but it is far from enough. To convince the readers, he must first provide detailed information about the relationship between proportion of copper in ore and the electric energy cost, and then make clear which kind of ore would be to extract, in the mean time ruling out other possibilities that may result the decline of the energy.


这篇文章可真是不怎么好写。。

[ 本帖最后由 Serendip 于 2006-7-14 15:24 编辑 ]

我楼上是HOGUID: 2228366

The well-presented argument on extracting of copper from ore provided plenty of useful information. However, the author underestimates the complexity of the practical situation; he just makes a series of harsh deduction.开头段感觉写得很不错,感觉就是很笼统的概括过去了,没有表达出自己的想法,只是重复了一下题目中作者的想法

First of all, the author confines his eyeshot in two specific kinds of ore---one contains high proportion, while the other low, and then comes his information about electricity cost. He mentions that old technology requires a large amount of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. But he fails to mention other possibility, whether the old technology will still cost so much energy as it does in high ore, or what is the exact definition of low? 5%, 15%, or else. Similarly, the author then(then the author is better) provide information that new technology does well in extracting copper in high ore, but what about the low one, and what about the definition of high开头省去AND,不然在同一句里使用过多的AND就感觉很重复, and how the number 40% is measured? The author makes two same mistakes almost just at the same time, which reflect his carelessness in deduction. To bolster his assertion on the comparison of the two technologies, he must clearly define the notion of low and high, and add other information about the energy cost in different situation, using a chart, for example, to avoid logical flaws as he makes in his article.这里的很多长句的运用不太好,建议去研究下作文的句子会提高很多

Following the author's logic, we can not draw the conclusion that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly, even if assuming that the new technology is better than the old one on the whole. Maybe people use new technology to extract copper from low ore, but use old one for the high one; therefore, the electric energy cost may be just the same or opposite to the author's deduction. Moreover, if the new technology is used to extract more copper, the energy cost would be increase sharply. Therefore, the author should make clear which kind of ore would be used in the future, and the amount of the copper extracted, before he asserts that the energy cost would decline.

Besides, the author overlooks some other factors that may lead to the decline. It is entirely possible that the technology does not change the electric energy cost at all, but it is the improvement of worker's skill that help decline the energy cost, or it might be the situation of the equipments is improved--after repairing or lubricating or replacement of enhancement accessories. Since the author provide no information about the factors that influence the outcome of the extraction, he cannot convince me that the decline is due to the use of new technology.

Summarily, the author provides us much information to bolster his assertion, but it is far from enough(这句写成unpersuasive感觉会不会好点). To convince the readers, he must first provide detailed information about the relationship between proportion of copper in ore and the electric energy cost, and then make clear which kind of ore would be to extract, in the mean time ruling out other possibilities that may result the decline of the energy.

整个文章的逻辑很好,表达的也不错,,开头写得很笼统,没有表达出自己的想法,还有就是在句子上出了很多毛病,建议最好去针对句子去练习

SerendipUID: 2227806

The well-presented argument on extracting of copper from ore provided plenty of useful information. However, the author underestimates the complexity of the practical situation; he just makes a series of harsh deduction, and this is what I take leave to doubt.

First of all, the author confines his eyeshot in two specific kinds of ore---one contains high proportion, while the other low, and then comes his information about electricity cost. He mentions that old technology requires a large amount of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. But he fails to mention other possibility, whether the old technology will still cost so much energy as it does in high ore, or what is the exact definition of low? 5%, 15%, or else. Similarly, then the author provide information that new technology does well in extracting copper in high ore, but what about the low one, what about the definition of high, how the number 40% is measured? That the author makes two same mistakes almost just at the same time reflects his carelessness in deduction. To bolster his assertion on the comparison of the two technologies, he must clearly define the notion of low and high, and add other information about the energy cost in different situation, by using a chart, for example, to avoid logical flaws as he makes in his article.

Following the author's logic, we can not draw the conclusion that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly, even if assuming that the new technology is better than the old one on the whole. Maybe people use new technology to extract copper from low ore, but use old one for high ore; therefore, the electric energy cost may be just opposite to the author's deduction. Moreover, if the new technology is used to extract more copper, the energy cost would be increase sharply. Therefore, the author should make clear which kind of ore would be used in the future, and the amount of the copper extracted before he asserts that the energy cost would decline.

Besides, the author overlooks some other factors that may lead to the decline. It is entirely possible that the technology does not change the electric energy cost at all, but it is the improvement of worker's skill that help decline the energy cost, or it might be the situation of the equipments is improved--after repairing or lubricating or replacement of enhancement accessories. Since the author provides no information about the factors that influence the outcome of the extraction, he cannot convince me that the decline is due to the use of new technology.

Summarily, the author provides us much information to bolster his assertion, but it is unpersuasive. To convince the readers, he must first provide detailed information about the relationship between proportion of copper in ore and the electric energy cost, and then make clear which kind of ore would be to extract, in the mean time ruling out other possibilities that may result the decline of the energy.


修改了，关于句子的练习，哪里有啊？

liuxing3322UID: 2189448

请问一下，A如果在400字左右够不够字数？

dicmiUID: 183392

原帖由 liuxing3322 于 2006-7-18 19:51 发表
请问一下，A如果在400字左右够不够字数？

可以了