Argument71 同主题作业，有拍必回

DennisWangUID: 2212771

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.”

提纲：
1. arguer没有提供证据证明新的提取方法的效果如何。如果提取的铜并不纯或者不如老方法提取的效果好，则即使更省电也不适合应用于铜提取工业。
2. arguer说在同的比例比较低的时候应用这种消耗大量电力的流程，而新方法在铜比例比较高的时候能够节电40%。作者所作的比较不在同一基础之上，应该用相同比例铜矿来比较。
3. arguer仅仅凭铜矿提纯新方法省电就推断整个工业所用电力显著减少是不充分的。其它耗电环节。而且，新方法节省如此多的电可能需要其它形式的能源如天然气、石油、煤等作为补充才能达到与老方法同样好的效果。

This argument seems to have sufficient and reasonable evidence to support its conclusion that a kind of new copper-extracting technology can save electrical energy in copper-extraction industry. However, in fact, there are several fallacies in these evidences provided by the arguer.

One of the most obvious fallacies is that the arguer fails to provide any other details of the new copper-extracting technologies. The only information which we could gather from the new method is that it requires less electrical energy than the older method base on high proportion of copper in the ore. In order to show that the new method is much better than the old one, the arguer should offer other advantages of the new method such as the quality of the extracted copper, the speed of the process and the pollution. If the new method has the advantages on saving power only, it is not necessary to take this process instead of the old for the reason that the copper-extraction industry is a kind of business which need quality and profits. Therefore, the new way should have more general superiorities than the old method.

Another significant fallacy of the argument is that the arguer makes the comparison between the two methods based on different preconditions. Concretely, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, the new method could save 40 percent of electrical power than the only process used to extract copper in the past. The arguer also claims that the old method requires a large amount of electrical power when extracting is based on the fact of low proportion of copper in the ore. Perhaps, the new method will take as same amount as the old method when the two methods are both used to extract lean ore. Likewise, as for fat ore, the old method may not waste much electricity like it is used to extract lean ore. Therefore, the arguer should exemplify the percentage of saving power under the balanceable fundament.

Last but not least, even if the new method do save the electrical power significantly, we still can not believe that the amount of electricity used by whole copper-extraction industry will decline remarkably for the reason that the arguer does not show other processes requires a large amount of electricity in this industry. Probably the process of extraction takes only a little part of energy in the whole industry so that the significant decreasing of energy in extraction may not cause the same amount of power saving in the industry. On the other hand, the arguer fails to emphasis that whether the new method requires other forms of energies when it is getting work. Perhaps, in order to obtain the same effects with the old method, the new one is likely to require natural gas, patrol, coal or other forms of energies to supplement the disadvantages owing to saving 40 percent of electricity.

In sum, the arguer is too opinionatedly to make the conclusion in that his or her evidences are not sufficient to demonstrate it. To strengthen the evidences, the arguer should follow the advices mentioned above.

xinxinwUID: 2144273

This argument seems to have sufficient and reasonable evidence to support its conclusion that a kind of new copper-extracting technology can save electrical energy in copper-extraction industry. However, in fact, there are several fallacies in these（应该用those） evidences provided by the arguer.

One of the most obvious fallacies is that the arguer fails to provide any other details of the new copper-extracting technologies. The only information which we could gather from the new method（from the argument, of the new method） is that it requires less electrical energy than the older method base on high proportion of copper in the ore. In order to show that the new method is much better than the old one, the arguer should offer other advantages of the new method such as the quality of the extracted copper, the speed of the process and the pollution. If the new method has the advantages on saving power only, it is not necessary to take this process instead of the old for the reason that the copper-extraction industry is a kind of business which need quality and profits. Therefore, the new way should have more general superiorities than the old method.

Another significant fallacy of the argument is that the arguer makes the comparison between the two methods based on different preconditions. Concretely, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, the new method could save 40 percent of electrical power than the only process used to extract copper in the past. The arguer also claims that the old method requires a large amount of electrical power when extracting is based on the fact of low proportion of copper in the ore. Perhaps, the new method will take as same amount as the old method when the two methods are both used to extract lean ore. Likewise, as for fat ore, the old method may not waste much electricity like it is used to extract lean ore. Therefore, the arguer should exemplify the percentage of saving power under the balanceable fundament.

Last but not least, even if the new method do save the electrical power significantly, we still can not believe that the amount of electricity used by whole copper-extraction industry will decline remarkably for the reason that the arguer does not show other processes requires a large amount of electricity in this industry. Probably the process of extraction takes only a little part of energy in the whole industry so that the significant decreasing of energy in extraction may not cause the same amount of power saving in the industry. On the other hand, the arguer fails to emphasis that whether the new method requires other forms of energies when it is getting work. Perhaps, in order to obtain the same effects with the old method, the new one is likely to require natural gas, patrol, coal or other forms of energies to supplement the disadvantages owing to saving 40 percent of electricity.（赞你最后这一论点）

In sum, the arguer is too opinionatedly to make the conclusion in that his or her evidences are not sufficient to demonstrate it. To strengthen the evidences, the arguer should follow the advices mentioned above.（建议太简单了，还不如不写）




mine：
http://edu.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=494082&extra=page%3D1

DennisWangUID: 2212771

非常感谢：）可以不写结尾的么？我看范文基本上都写了，倒是没有写这么少的，呵呵