Argument71 [Jet小姐]第六次作业 第五篇A，欢迎拍砖

goldin2008UID: 2140085

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: 446          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-15
提纲：
1.     前提是新的技术和方法被广泛使用，但是有可能新技术污染环境或者太贵，不能被广泛使用。如果这个前提不成立，再多的证据也没有用。
2.     证据本身也有问题：使用于高含量的技术，低含量不一定使用。
3.     矿石可能会越来越多，那时电量也会增加。

In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly. He points out that new method, through new copper-extracting technologies, can save amounts of electric energy and cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several fallacies in this argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that the new method can save amounts of electricity energy, the argument is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that the new copper-extracting technologies, instead of the older one, would be widely used. It is entirely possible that saving electric energy is not the significant factor responsible for being widely used, at least not the only one. The speaker fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that this new method pollutes air and water, therefore dose disservice to environment, or that the new technologies need more money. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. To substantiate the assumption or justify the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and the evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the author cannot convince me.

In addition, the speaker fails to consider the credibility of evidence. The speaker claims that the only method of extracting pure copper from ore needs large amounts of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. While new copper-extracting technologies need less electricity than the older method, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. But the speaker does not mention whether the new technologies are applicable to copper whose proportion is low in the ore. Maybe the result is not what we hope.

Finally, the author draws the conclusion in considering the evidence that the amount of raw ore is the same like before, whose credibility is open to doubt. It is possible that the amount of raw ore is increasing, which result in more electric energy and other relevant resource being required.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that this new method could be applicable to copper no matter what proportion in the ore.
It could be further improved by providing evidence that this new technologies would be widely used. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.