Argument71 Thrive小组第8次作业 求拍！

vic_rainUID: 2304309

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: 472          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-19 14:58:14

By making a comparison between two copper-extracting technologies, the author concludes that the overall amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly. Although this argument seems to be well-presented on the surface, close scrutiny reveals several flaws, which renders it not well-reasoned but unconvincing.

First, what if we consider some important terminology in the argument? For example, what does "up to 40 percent" mean? In most circumstances or seldom the new extraction would work best to save up to 40 percent electricity? Also, when the author says it is especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, what about the occurred frequency of this case? We just don't know. It is entirely possible that the new extraction have no advantage over the older one until when the proportion in the ore is high, while the latter possibility is highly few. As no evidence has been offered to eliminate these questions, the conclusion given by author is unconvincing.

Secondly, even if the new extraction always works better than the older one, it does not necessarily indicate that it would be used in a large scale. For all we know, technical feasibility might be highly questionable. Perhaps the extraction consumes much less electricity under the cost of slower velocity, more human resources, costlier machine and so forth. Or perhaps the new extraction has some fatal weakness and potential problems which prevent it from being applied after a relative long period. For that matter, the old extraction should remain unchanged as it had been. Without ruling out these possibilities
to justify the fact that the new extraction would be used immediately and replaced the old one in a large scale, the conclusion that amount of  electricity would decline significantly is dubious.

Finally, even if the author could substantiate the above assumptions, the overall amount of electricity would not necessarily decline significantly as a result. Overall amount of used electricity is a function of both expense per unit amount of raw ore and the overall amount of processed raw ore. As economic developed increasingly, It is highly reasonable that the total amount of raw ore to be processed increase sharply to keep pace with the rising requirement of copper, which renders the overall amount of used electricity augment despites its lower electricity expense of processing unit amount of raw ore. Without weighting the electricity expense of processing unit amount against total amount to be processed, the author's conclusion is premature at best.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must supply evidence that the new copper-extraction always save electricity usage and that it can be applied in the foreseeable future and would replace the old extraction in a large scale. To better evaluate the argument, the author should also give us the total requirement estimates of processing raw ore.

[ 本帖最后由 vic_rain 于 2008-2-19 17:41 编辑 ]