argument71 [Jet小组] 第六次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

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.
words: 416

The arguer draws a conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To substantiate this claim, the arguer cites an evidence which shows that new copper-extracting technologies seems can save electricity that old ones. A careful examination of this argument reveals how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the evidence which is cited by the arguer shows that new technologies can save 40 percent electricity than older method when they process the same amount of raw ore. However, this evidence does not prove that the two methods extract copper in a same level of purity. It is possible that copper which is extracted by new method is less pure than copper which is extracted by old method, though the two methods process the same amount of raw ore and the new one can save electricity. In this situation, to gain purer copper, factories based on new procession might need more electricity than old ones.

Secondly, even if the two methods convert raw ore into copper in a same efficiency, the save of electricity is still dubious. The arguer claims that new technologies can use up to 40percent less electricity than the older method especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, while the old way requires large amounts of electric energy especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. Nevertheless, the proportion of copper in the ore vary considerably, the extreme situation does not appear frequently. It is possible that in most cases, the proportion of copper in the ore is medial, and the need of electricity is not distinct so much. The conclusion of the significantly declined use of electricity is unsound.

What’s more, the arguer does not consider some other factors which might consume electric energy. For example, it might also need electricity to maintain the extracting machine periodical for protecting its safe working. If this cost of electric energy in new method is more than the cost in old technologies, whether the save of electricity is feasible is not sure.

In sum, this argument is full of flaws and is lack of logical reasoning. To improve it, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove that the two methods are efficient in same level, and the new technologies always use less electricity no matter what the proportion of copper in the ore is. Moreover, the arguer should also investigate exactly to prove that there is no other factors which need electricity.

sunneptuneUID: 2451588

The arguer draws a conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To substantiate this claim, the arguer cites an evidence which shows that new copper-extracting technologies seems can(选择一个) save electricity that old ones(?). A careful examination of this argument reveals how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the evidence which is cited by the arguer shows that new technologies can save 40 percent electricity than the older method when they process the same amount of raw ore. However, this evidence does not prove that whether the two methods extract copper in a same level of purity. It is possible that copper which is extracted by the new method is less pure than copper which is extracted by the old method(此句略有冗余感，感觉变换句式变精简些会更好）, though the two methods process the same amount of raw ore and the new one can save electricity. In this situation, to gain purer copper, factories based on new procession might need more electricity than old ones( factories might not apply the new technologies.)
     

Secondly, even if the two methods convert raw ore into copper in a same efficiency, the save of electricity is still dubious. The arguer claims that new technologies can use up to 40percent less electricity than the older method especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, while the old way requires large amounts of electric energy especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. Nevertheless, the proportion of copper in the ore vary considerably, the extreme situation does not appear frequently.（一句子出现两个句子？用连词连一下）It is possible that in most cases, the proportion of the copper in the ore is medial, and the need of electricity is not distinct so much. The conclusion of the significantly declined use of electricity is unsound.

What’s more, the arguer does not consider some other factors which might consume electric energy. For example, it might also need electricity to maintain the extracting machine periodical for protecting its safe working(satety). If this cost of electric energy in new method is more than the cost in old technologies, whether the save of electricity is feasible is not sure.

In sum, this argument is full of flaws and is lack of logical reasoning. To improve it, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove that the two methods are efficient in same level, and the new technologies always use less electricity no matter what the proportion of copper in the ore is. Moreover, the arguer should also investigate exactly to prove that there is no other factors which need electricity.

小结：作者批驳的思路很不错，能够将错误清晰的表达出来。
         呵,冠词的使用我们应该一起研究一下.

[ 本帖最后由 sunneptune 于 2008-2-15 23:59 编辑 ]