【同心砥砺冲刺小组】强化周 限时ARGUMENT71 by 666

irvine666UID: 2575525

这篇又是化工,一边写一边骂,真恶心的题材...
觉得自己的2,3段就是在讲一件事:这个技术could not be broadly actualized,是不是重复了...
算了,吃完饭来改.


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: 475          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/3/6 17:32:50

Comparing the new technologies with the traditional ones, and then based upon the superiority in electricity reducing of the former, the author thus predicted an optimistic perspective of the new copper-extracting skills. However, to prove those hypothesise requires more work of reasoning and more relative background evidences.

To begin with, the author might intensively conceal the purity of copper proceeded and the expenditure of replacing new equipment. Primarily, the quality of the products should not be overlooked. Admittedly, for its important influence in earning profits, cost should be considered as an important factor in comprehensive judgment of new industrial skills, whereas the quality and quantity of the products are even more decisive in determining practical value of certain new technology. As is self-evident, one industrial innovation could be broadly accepted only when its manufactures satisfied customers. If, for example, the new process of copper-extracting technologies failed to extract more pure copper, factories would never be willing to accept new technologies although the traditional one expends more electricity. In addition, the technical costs are undeserved slipped. When the CEO of one copper-extracting corporation endeavor to decrease their daily cost of energy, the primary consideration of him/her would be how much should he/she pay for the new equipment? If the costs of exchanging equipment, for instance, are much higher than the spending of extra electricity, one would require great act of will to eliminate old equipment. Since the expectation of the author established mainly in wide spread and broad using of the new industrial skills, he/she should not neglect the possibilities mentioned above.

What is more, the effects of the new technologies to environment as well face the similar challenge. Are those new industrial skills detrimental to ecosphere? There might be opportunity that the equipment utilizing those technologies would release great amount of detrimental gases or polluted water to our living circumstance. Actually, if certain new technology will be harmful to our generations, it would never be actualized. Since the author rashly skip this possibility while focus merely on the power saving, the optimistic perspective he/she expecting might never emerge. True, new revolutionary industrial technology rarely failed to influence our daily lives, nonetheless, before verifying its practical influences, the positive anticipation is somewhat too hastily.

Last but not least, the author failed to take into account that there might be other alternative possibilities to reach out to the purpose of energy saving. Do there exist any chemical compounds that could accelerate the copper-extracting action? As is known to all, appropriate catalyst could lower the temperature required in chemical interactions and therefore reduce the cost of electricity.

In sum, were there detailed background information demonstrating quality of the products and cost of the machine, particular description convincing the essential impact to circumstance, comprehensive deduction excluding other possible approaches, the expectation of the author would be more rational.