- 最后登录
- 2010-2-22
- 在线时间
- 47 小时
- 寄托币
- 18
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2009-3-17
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 6
- UID
- 2617470

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 18
- 注册时间
- 2009-3-17
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
模板化是不是太严重了?思路有没有问题?求猛拍!!!!!!!!
TOPIC: ARGUMENT159 - The nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. But despite wide geographic differences, many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity. A recent study of household electric costs in Claria found that families who cooled their houses with fans alone spent more on electricity than did families using air conditioners alone for cooling. However, those households that reported using both fans and air conditioners spent less on electricity than those households that used either fans or air conditioners alone. Thus, the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity.
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-3-17 下午 08:10:53
In this argument, the author recommends both using air conditioners and fans as an effective way of saving money on electricity. In order to justify it, the author cites a survey that different families being diverse in the way of cooling the house spend different money on electricity. However, close scrutiny of the statistic and the line of reasoning reveal that it is not convincing.
A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. Lacking of assurance and information about the randomness and relative size of the survey' sample, the author cannot convince me the conclusion of the survey is reliable. As the author mentions, the nation of Claria covers a vast physical area, without enough large sample, so it is entirely possible that the survey is not representative of the real situation of Claria. Moreover different place will have different temperature and the price of electricity, without comprehensive consideration these factors, I strongly doubt the reliability of the survey. The dubious survey undermines the follow conclusions which rely on it.
Secondly, the author asserts different way of cooling the house causes the decrease of electricity consuming just because they happen together. Obviously, the evidence for the casual relationship is too vague to believe. Furthermore, to satisfy the same requirement, common sense informs us air condition costs more electricity than fans. Thus, there must be other reasons causing the decrease of the electric consumption. The most reasonable one is that the expense for air condition is so money-consuming that the citizens would like to tolerate the hot weather rather than pay for it.
Even though the author can substantiate foregoing assumption and assertion, I still cannot accept his/her recommendation because the author overlooks other factors contributes to the amounts of electricity. As we know, for a family, facilities of cooling the house take little part of electricity. Computer, lights, television, fridge and so forth cost more electricity. Thus it is possible that even though the method of saving electricity recommended by the author works, it makes little contribution to the total electricity consuming so that we cannot see the change on
spending money. Furthermore, if the electric consumptions of other factors increase, it will not save the money, strongly contradicting to the conclusion of the author.
To sum up, the recommendation suffers from statistic and logic flaws causing that it is not warranted. In order to strengthen it, the author should provide the compelling evidence to prove the reliability of the survey and the casual relationship between the way of cooling their house and decrease of electric consumption. Additionally, the author should also provide appealing evidence to prove the total electric consumption will decrease.
|
|