买一送一 argu 2 & 71：【飞扬之夏】squallteo

squallteoUID: 173687

Argument 2:
The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."



In this argument, the speaker insists the residents in Deerhaven Acres (DA) adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, in order to bring in a leap in the value of their properties. To support the assertion, the speaker also cited the example of Brookville, a town near DA, whose average property values have tripled through these years by adopting a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Yet, the argument is not convincing as it stands, due to several logical flaws.

First, it's controversial for the speaker to ascribe the tripled average property values of Brookville to the restrictions on landscaping and housekeeping. As a matter of fact, many factors other than the restrictions can end up in the fluctuation of average property values. For example, the prosperity of Brookville may have brought in large amount of investment, which certainly increases the average property values. Besides, the mild climate and impressive scenery guarantee more people living in Brookville and the property values rise accordingly. By the way, the friendly circumstance in Brookville may also contribute to the increase. Thus, more intrinsic reasons should be given.

Second, the speaker's assertion relies on a false analogy between DA and Brookville. The speaker's intention is to take Brookville's tripled property values as reference and to prove residents in DA should do the same thing to achieve the goal. Nevertheless, the increase is unnecessarily to take place in DA again. As mentioned above, the primary cause of the increase still remains to be investigated. The economic and political environment in the two towns can vary considerably. If, unfortunately, the primary cause is the mild climate of Brookville, of which DA lacks, the DA residents' efforts will be in vain. What's worse, they may even suffer great loss. So the speaker must make sure there is enough resemblance between the two towns before getting a conclusion.

Thirdly, the speaker is taking a risk to commit an anachronistic mistake. The restrictions of Brookville occurred seven years ago and it's likely that the style of consistent landscaping and housepainting has gone out of trend. In contemporary society, people tend to value individuation more than uniformity. And it's not advisable for the DA residents to adopt an old-fashioned conception which may not be feasible today. To rule out the possibility of taking the unnecessary risk, the speaker should do a survey on this issue.

In sum, the argument isn't convincing. To make a sound argument, the speaker still needs to find more intrinsic reasons for the increase in Brookville’s average property values, to find out more resemblance that can support the analogy between DA and Brookville, and to gather more information about the present trend of landscaping and housepainting.

squallteoUID: 173687

Argument 71:
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.



The speaker asserts that the new method of copper-extraction excels the old one. To support his assertion, the speaker points out that the new method can largely reduce electric energy consumption, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. And the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction will also decline significantly. Yet, the argument contains several critical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First, the most significant flaw is the speaker's one-sidedness when alleging the new method is recommendable, simply because it can save energy. Admittedly, to evaluate an industrial process, energy consumption is an indispensable factor. Nevertheless, it's by no means the only criterion. The speaker should also investigate the condition under which the chemical and physical process takes place, the amount of byproducts and availability of catalysts etc. Only based on an overall comparison can he assert the new method is recommendable or not. Perhaps the new energy-saving method requires a reacting condition which is more difficult to achieve, such as higher voltage. The change is likely to end up in increasing the loss of electricity in transmission. And the process may generate more toxic byproducts which can cause severe contamination. That will certainly violate public interests and have negative effect on the extension of the new method. Thus, only based on an overall comparison between the two methods can the speaker assert the new method is recommendable or not.

Secondly, the speaker's assertion relies on an ideal assumption of the acceptance of the new method. The factory owners are driven by commercial interests. It's unnecessary for them to adopt the new method merely because it's energy-saving. The equipment for the new method may be luxurious that small enterprises cannot afford. And to train the techincians and workers to utilize the new method, the tuition will also be taken into managers' consideration. Besides, the complexity of the new method remains unmentioned in the argument. Maybe the new method calls for more human resources and that's exactly what managers hate to see. To make the argument more persuasive, the speaker should provide more details that can allure the managers to adopt the new method.

Thirdly, the argument is incomplete. The speaker doesn't mention how good the new method's performance is when dealing with low-grade ores, that is, ores in which the proportion of copper is low. It's too ideal to conceive that the copper-extraction industry mainly deals with high-level ores. On the contrary, low-grade ores distributes more widely than high-level ones. To rule out the argument's incompleteness, it's essential to overcome this flaw by pointing out whether the new method is practical to low-grade ores.

In sum, the argument is kind of questionable due to several logical flaws. To make a sound argument, the speaker still needs to introduce an overall comparison between the old and the new process to prove the latter is recommendable, to provide more attractive features of the new method to guarantee a wide adoption, and to rule out the argument's incompleteness by investigating the new method's effectiveness when dealing with low-grade ores.

squallteoUID: 173687

多指教多切磋，欢迎留下链接互改！:handshake