Argument71 【07-10G Superstar大帖】第11次作业 by gyyx

gyyxUID: 2290150

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.

In this argument, the author concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will fall down significantly due to new technologies which could save 40 percent electricity than before. A close scrutiny to this argument, I find some logical fallacies and unconvincing.

At the first place, the author takes fallacious comparison between two uses of electricity under two factors, that is one is the proportion of copper is low and the other is the proportion is high. These comparisons brings up the possibility that maybe when the proportion is low, the new technologies did not save electricity 40% like the proportion is high, perhaps the same to the old technology. As a result, we could not rely on the 40 percent as a significant decrease in electricity used by new technologies.

The second problem with this argument is that the author ignore whether the quality of the new copper-extraction technologies is the same as the old one. It is highly possible that with decline in electricity the purity of the copper suffers a decline too. Or perhaps, the new technologies will change the physicochemical property of the copper and this copper could not be used in industry as before as a result of lack of enough electricity in extraction. In either event above the copper-extraction industry may have to consume more electricity to pure the copper and change the physicochemical property back. Without ruling out these alternative scenarios, the author could not get the conclusion with the mere fact that the electricity will decline.
   
Finally, the author assumes the electricity in copper-extraction is the main part of the copper-extraction industry, which neglect some possibilities. Maybe the new technologies need more time to extract, and the time rise, the electricity will increase. Or perhaps, the electricity used in extraction is only a small part of the copper-extraction industry, in which purity and separation cost even more and be the main part. Lack of information makes the author’s argument reveals incredible.

In summary, the author based his conclusion on unreasonable comparison and assumption, which lower down credibility of the argument. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide more precise statistics of the two technologies in the same factors to demonstrate the new technologies really decline the electricity in the same situation and more details about the proportion of all parts of copper-extraction industry use in electricity.

[ 本帖最后由 gyyx 于 2007-6-20 19:08 编辑 ]

学野UID: 2155973

In this argument, the author concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will fall down significantly due to new technologies which could save 40 percent electricity than before. A close scrutiny to this argument, I find some logical fallacies and unconvincing.总感觉unconvincing后面是不是少了点什么 ，呵呵

At( In) the first place, the author takes fallacious comparison between two uses of electricity under two factors, that is one is the proportion of copper is low and the other is the proportion is high. These comparisons brings up (may give rise to怎么样）the possibility that maybe when the proportion is low, the new technologies did not save electricity 40% like the proportion is high, perhaps the same to the old technology. As a result, we could not rely on the 40 percent as a significant decrease in electricity used by new technologies. 很好！找的准

The second problem with this argument is that the author ignore ignores whether the quality of the new copper-extraction technologies is the same as the old one. It is highly possible that with decline in electricity the purity of the copper suffers a decline too. Or perhaps, the new technologies will change the physicochemical property of the copper and this copper could not be used in industry as before as a result of lack of enough electricity in extraction. In either event above the copper-extraction industry may have to consume more electricity to pure the copper and change the physicochemical property back. Without ruling out these alternative scenarios, the author could not get the conclusion with the mere fact that the electricity will decline. 反例很好！
   
Finally, the author assumes the electricity in copper-extraction is the main part of the copper-extraction industry, which neglect some （some other)possibilities. Maybe the new technologies need more time to extract, and the time rise, the electricity will increase. Or perhaps, the electricity used in extraction is only a small part of the copper-extraction industry, in which purity and separation cost even more and be the main part. Lack of (such)information makes the author’s argument reveals（reveals去掉好点吧） incredible.

In summary, the author based his conclusion on unreasonable comparison and assumption, which lower down 语气软了点直接undermine得了credibility of the argument. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide more precise statistics of the two technologies in the same factors to demonstrate the new technologies really decline the electricity in the same situation and more details about the proportion of all parts of copper-extraction industry use in electricity. 总体非常清晰到位，没什么大问题，衔接也很不错，尤其是反例举的很好很有说服力~学习ing~