argument71 【米国有米】第十四次寒假作业

pipifenfenUID: 2292582

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.
07-02-09

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To support the argument, the arguer presents a new copper extraction technology which needs less electricity than the old copper extraction technology. At the first glance, the argument is well present. Yet, through a careful examination of this argument, I find lots of logical flaws.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the new extraction technology will absolutely be used. Yet, no evidence is provided in this argument. Lacking this evidence, it is quite possible that workers would use the old technology method because they are familiar with them. Or, perhaps, the copper extracted form the ore is not pure by the new technology. Therefore, the arguer should offer more information about the detailed use and efficiency of new copper-extraction technologies to justify the conclusion.

What's more, even if the assumption is substantiated by the arguer, it doesn't indicate that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline. The arguer points out that the old method consumes lots of electricity especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low, and that the new method consumes little electricity especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is high. So, if workers use the new method to extract copper when the proportion is low, there would not be much declination of electricity. If the proportion of copper is high, there is no need to use the new method due to the fact that the old method doesn't consume much electricity. What’ more, if the proportion of copper in the ore is neither high nor low, no information is offered that the new technology will save electricity than the old one in this situation. Consequently, unless the arguer could provide information that new method could also save electricity highly when the proportion of copper in the ore is low or is moderate, the arguer could not convince me that the new method means the declination of electricity consumption.

Even if that no matter the proportion of copper is high or low, the new method means declination of electricity consumption, and that workers will use this method exclusively. Yet, the argument contains no information of the total amount of the ore needed to be processed. It is equally likely that recently there is much more ore existing needed to be processed than before. So, if this is the case, even though the new technology could significantly reduce the electricity consumption per unit weight, the total amount of the electricity would increase due to the increase of the amount of ore. Therefore, the arguer should also provide the detailed information of the amount of ore so as to strengthen the conclusion.

All in all, the argument is not strongly supported as it stands. The arguer should provide more information of the new technology on different proportion of copper in ore to substantiate the argument. What's more, the arguer should also make sure if the workers would use the new technology method to extract copper from ore and what the total amount of the ore is.


[ 本帖最后由 pipifenfen 于 2007-2-10 11:47 编辑 ]