argument71 同主题第二期

微末三月UID：205072

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: 440          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-14

In this recommendation, the arguer concludes that we can expect amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly if we apply the new copper-extracting technologies. However, this recommendation relies on a series of groundless assumption and therefore inconvincible as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that how much the new copper-extracting technologies need when the proportion of copper in the ore is low. Maybe new technologies will need much more energy than the old one when applied to the high proportion of copper. In some terms the characteristics of matters are depended on the proportion of element which was concluded in. Like carbon, it can become the strongest substance in the world in diamond, while much softer in the lead and the difference between these two is the proportion of carbon. So it is unwarranted to assume that the new technologies will consume less energy when the proportion of copper is low only because they do in the high proportion.

Moreover, the arguer ignores other relevant factors about the application of the new extracting technologies, such as the cost of the new machines or equipments. The factories might not prefer to these new methods because they will cost them too much and the radio between cost and performance is dissatisfactory. Or perhaps the new technologies did not experiment enough proof in industry. And they may cost a lot of money on repair and parts of replacement. Or perhaps the supports of techniques are not untrustworthy since they did not well-knit in fact. Without these detailed information about the actual cost on the new technologies, the prospect of this one is problematic.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that amount of electricity decline significantly if the industry will use the new copper-extracting technologies. Grounded on foregoing reasons, we hold the suspicion that the new technologies will reduce the consumption of energy in the extraction of copper from ore. Even if we accept this assumption will come true, we still suspect whether these kinds of technologies will consume much more energy when considering all the spending. Maybe after the process of extracting, other processes will cost more energy, such as distillation and recycling of the waste. And the entire consumption will exceed the old ways greatly. Lacking further information, we cannot assure that the new technologies will reduce the amount of energy.

In sum, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several unproven assumption, which render it convincing. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide much more detailed information about the application of these new technologies, concluding the cost on new equipments and other expending.


一整天GTER都上不来,总算是...

apiyo_07UID：2191343

In this recommendation, the arguer concludes that we can expect amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly if we apply the new copper-extracting technologies. However, this recommendation relies on a series of groundless assumption and therefore inconvincible as it stands.（简洁明了的说）

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that（用as to会不会更好？） how much （加上electricity？）the new copper-extracting technologies need when the proportion of copper in the ore is low. Maybe new technologies will need much more energy than the old one when applied to the high（high还是low？） proportion of copper. In some terms（什么意思呢？） the characteristics of matters are depended on（用be dependent on或depend on） the proportion of element which was concluded in（加it）. Like carbon, it can become the strongest substance in the world in diamond, while much softer in the lead and the difference between these two is the proportion of carbon. So it is unwarranted to assume that the new technologies will consume less energy when the proportion of copper is low only because they do in the high proportion. （最后一句总结得好啊）

Moreover, the arguer ignores other relevant factors about the application of the new extracting technologies, such as the cost of the new machines or equipments. The factories might not prefer to （去掉to或在to后加上use/employ等动词）these new methods because they will cost them too much and the radio（ratio？） between cost and performance is dissatisfactory. Or perhaps the new technologies did not experiment enough proof in industry（词语搭配不当？）. And they may cost a lot of money on repair and parts of replacement（什么意思呢？）. Or perhaps the supports of techniques are not untrustworthy since they did not well-knit in fact（读不大懂这句话）. Without these detailed information about the actual cost on the new technologies, the prospect of this one is problematic.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that amount of electricity decline（declines） significantly if the industry will use the new copper-extracting technologies. Grounded on foregoing reasons, we hold the suspicion that the new technologies will reduce the consumption of energy in the extraction of copper from ore（表述有点不清楚，能不能改成we hold it in suspicion whether the new...？）. Even if we accept this assumption will come true, we still suspect whether these kinds of technologies will consume much more energy when considering all the spending. Maybe after the process of extracting, other processes will cost more energy, such as distillation and recycling of the waste. And the entire consumption will exceed the old ways greatly. Lacking further information, we cannot assure（make sure?） that the new technologies will reduce the amount of energy.

In sum, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several unproven assumption（加上复数s）, which render it convincing.（定于从句的表述有点问题） To strengthen it, the arguer should provide much more detailed information about the application of these new technologies, concluding（including？） the cost on new equipments and other expending（expenses？）.

汗，我是那种注重细节有时候反而看不清大局的人= =|||
总的看上去，条理比较清晰的，能在30分钟内写成，厉害哦^^

欢迎回拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

hanyuanUID：2219299

In this recommendation, the arguer concludes that we can expect amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly if we apply the new copper-extracting technologies.（还是再概述下他的证据吧，这样开头完整些）However, this recommendation relies on a series of groundless assumption and therefore inconvincible as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that how much energy the new copper-extracting technologies need when the proportion of copper in the ore is low. Maybe new technologies will need much more energy than the old one when applied to the high proportion of copper.（看不懂，是说to get the same amount copper 需要耗更大的能量吗）In some terms（in terms 是在谈判中的意思，是说to some extent吗） the characteristics of matters are depended on the proportion of element which was concluded in（是说contains吗）. Like carbon, it can become the strongest substance in the world in diamond, while much softer in the lead and the difference between these two is the proportion of carbon. （再加一句说明，譬如variance of the proportion determine which method consumes more electricity）So it is unwarranted to assume that the new technologies will consume less energy when the proportion of copper is low only because they do in the high proportion.

Moreover, the arguer ignores other relevant factors about the application of the new extracting technologies, such as the cost of the new machines or equipments. （写得很好）The factories might not prefer to（用法to的后面要加比的另一个事物） these new methods because they will cost them too much and the radio（ratio） between cost and performance is dissatisfactory. Or perhaps the new technologies did not experiment enough proof（感觉有点别扭这句 或者就说 is still in experimental stage） in industry. And they may cost a lot of money on repair and（去掉，repair parts 就是零配件的意思） parts of replacement. Or perhaps the supports of techniques are not untrustworthy since they did not well-knit in fact（不懂）. Without these detailed information about the actual cost on the new technologies, the prospect of this one（说decline强调点） is problematic.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that amount of electricity decline significantly if the industry will use the new copper-extracting technologies. Grounded on foregoing reasons, we hold the suspicion that the new technologies will reduce the consumption of energy in the extraction of copper from ore.（这句有点重复了，后面你已经说了） Even if we accept this assumption will come true, we still suspect whether these kinds of technologies will consume much more energy when considering all the spending. Maybe after the process of extracting, other processes will cost more energy, such as distillation and recycling of the waste.（作者所谓的加工就包括了所有得到铜的程序，你可以说它或许需要 additional facility to ensure its function）And the entire consumption will exceed the old ways greatly. Lacking further information, we cannot assure that the new technologies will reduce the amount of energy.
In sum, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several unproven assumption, which render it unconvincing. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide much more detailed information about the application of these new technologies, concluding the cost on new equipments and other expending.

总而言之，我觉得你写得很好的，而且已经可以限时，第一和第二段都很好，但要注意一些小错和词语的选用，第三段感觉有点牵强，理由不是很充分。
一起加油吧。