0910G Argument82 By Lucarl

lucarlUID：2616426

TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.

"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."

WORDS: 542
TIME: 00:30:00
修改用时：00：40：00 （参考孙远作文）
DATE: 2009-6-26 19:13:45


In this argument, the writer suggested that people should switch their major fuel from wood to charcoal, which comes from wood by partially burning wood. He considered both health and environment, but failed to make his recommendation from a perspective way.

To start with, the charcoal is partially burnt wood in a controlled process. The author didn't provide any data about how much smoke being produced in heating wood and that of in the process from wood to charcoal. Maybe charcoal produces as much smoke as wood does. The smoke was accused for causing respiratory and eye problems. Maybe a certain amount of smoke would affect people's health, and both wood and charcoal generate more smoke than the certain amount demanded. Even if charcoal produces much less smoke than wood does, yet, it’s not safe to say that charcoal is better for people’s health. Maybe they generate different kinds of smoke. What if charcoal produces a kind of smoke that causing a higher risk for people to get cancer? Therefore, before jumping to conclusion, information about how much and what kind of smoke exactly produced in burning wood and charcoal should be provided.

Second, the writer should take into account other alternatives when comparing the cost of charcoal with that of wood. He or she considered that, for the same amount, charcoal produces more amount of heat than wood does, and charcoal costs more but won't cause any economic hardship in conclusion. However, the author didn’t give out any evidence supporting his commentary. What if some new devices need to be installed in charcoal heating system? Maybe the money spend on these new devices is incredibly high. Even if there are no new devices for charcoal, the writer didn’t provide information about how much wood do we need to have 1 kilo of charcoal. Maybe, to get 1 kilo of charcoal, 10 kilos of wood need to be burnt, and 1 kilo charcoal just supply as much heat as 3 kilos of wood does. In this condition, it’s not a wise choice to switch heating fuel from wood to charcoal.

In addition, as we know, wood is burning with flame, and charcoal without any. And flame warms a larger area of the house in winter. For example, in a fireplace, people would like to have wood burning, rather than charcoal, because charcoal just pass the heat to things clinging to them. A perfect usage for this feature of charcoal is barbecue. But in heating system, charcoal hardly gets its job done as heating fuel in winters.

Moreover, as for the conclusion, the author said this switch would “improve people’s health”, which was absolutely wrong in logic. Even if the charcoal produces significantly less smoke than wood does, and it’s harmless to human, it won't ever improve people's health. People are healthier only when they get some nutrition or benefits mentally or physically.
In fact, to improve our health, we should focus on both getting more healthy and preventing from illness.

To conclude, the writer of the letter just took a superficial look on the heating fuel issue, and got a logically inappropriate conclusion that less smoke would improve people’s health. Before change the heating system, which is a large project, more alternatives should be considered and the authority should have a poll first.

附上提纲：
1、木头做成炭产生的烟不见得就少；即使少，不见得就对人体无害。
2、价格问题。可能使用碳需要安装新装置；即使没有，可能生产碳要N多N多的木头，而这么点儿碳产生的热量还没有这N多N多的木头多。
3、碳不着火。有时取暖时必须有火的，比如壁炉。
4、关于作者的结论“improve people’s health”，逻辑不通。

谢谢互改的同学~

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.

"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."

In this argument, the writer suggested that people should switch their major fuel from wood to charcoal, which comes from wood by partially burning wood. （第一句最好理清作者得出以上结论的逻辑链，参考66滴【heaven in flowers系列】，你说了作者的结论，但是他是基于什么得出这个结论的呢？）He considered both health and environment, but failed to make his recommendation from a perspective way.

To start with, the charcoal is partially burnt wood in a controlled process. （你犯了跟我一样的错误，这是陈述事实，而不是你的TS，换掉。）The author didn't provide any data about how much smoke being produced in heating wood and that of in the process from wood to charcoal. Maybe charcoal produces as much smoke as wood does. （根据作者提供的数据，作为燃料燃烧的时候碳产生的烟比木头产生的要少，如果你是想表述从木头转化成碳的这个过程也会产生大量smoke的话不应该这么表述。）The smoke was accused for causing respiratory and eye problems. (我觉得这里单纯陈述烟尘可以导致疾病不如说，The author argues that charcoal creates less smoke, which can cause respiratory and eye problems, than wood does. )Maybe a certain amount of smoke would affect people's health, and both wood and charcoal generate more smoke than the certain amount demanded. Even if charcoal produces much less smoke than wood does, yet, it’s not safe to say that charcoal is better for people’s health. （可以改成一个长句，According to the medical common sense, we understand that the smoke arouse healthy problems until it reach a certain degree, but we find nothing in the author's sentences which exactly show the certain amount of smoke …bla bla bla…）Maybe they generate different kinds of smoke. What if charcoal produces a kind of smoke that causing a higher risk for people to get cancer? (这两句我觉得有点。。。这个他因找的。。额。。。)Therefore, before jumping to conclusion, information about how much and what kind of smoke exactly produced in burning wood and charcoal should be provided.

我们来整理一下作者得出用碳代替木头的逻辑链：

用木头作燃料会引起环境污染和损害人体健康-------------------------\
碳作为控制过程下生产的燃料，燃烧时比木头少烟            \                             用碳取代木头
碳只比木头贵一点点→普通人（特别贫困的除外）买得起 → 碳比木头好  /
碳可以比木头产生更多的热量                         /

Second, the writer should take into account other alternatives when comparing the cost of charcoal with that of wood. （那啥。。Lucarl啊。。我觉得这段好像不合理，要分析的是作者的逻辑，不是从你的角度考虑用哪种燃料合理，=-=，万一人这篇文章是N年前刚刚有碳的时候写的咋办。。。那时候没有别的燃料捏？擦汗。。建议这段totally delete，重写）He or she considered that, for the same amount, charcoal produces more amount of heat than wood does, and charcoal costs more but won't cause any economic hardship in conclusion. However, the author didn’t give out any evidence supporting his commentary. What if some new devices need to be installed in charcoal heating system? Maybe the money spend on these new devices is incredibly high. Even if there are no new devices for charcoal, the writer didn’t provide information about how much wood do we need to have 1 kilo of charcoal. Maybe, to get 1 kilo of charcoal, 10 kilos of wood need to be burnt, and 1 kilo charcoal just supply as much heat as 3 kilos of wood does. In this condition, it’s not a wise choice to switch heating fuel from wood to charcoal.

In addition, as we know, wood is burning with flame, and charcoal without any. And flame warms a larger area of the house in winter. For example, in a fireplace, people would like to have wood burning, rather than charcoal, because charcoal just pass the heat to things clinging to them. A perfect usage for this feature of charcoal is barbecue. But in heating system, charcoal hardly gets its job done as heating fuel in winters.（擦汗。。你偏离逻辑链越来越远了。。孩子。。。）

Moreover, as for the conclusion, the author said this switch would “improve people’s health”, which was absolutely wrong in logic.（Sigh。。孩子。。你要分析的是作者的逻辑。。）Even if the charcoal produces significantly less smoke than wood does, and it’s harmless to human, it won't ever improve people's health. People are healthier only when they get some nutrition or benefits mentally or physically.
In fact, to improve our health, we should focus on both getting more healthy and preventing from illness.

To conclude, the writer of the letter just took a superficial look on the heating fuel issue, and got a logically inappropriate conclusion that less smoke would improve people’s health. Before change the heating system, which is a large project, more alternatives should be considered and the authority should have a poll first.

irvine666UID：2575525

抱歉今天事儿太多，可能按时批不了了，不过刚才看了下家家的批改，觉得基本都说到点子上了，你可以先按照她的思想把文章调整一下再交给我改，效果会更好

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

话说。。66丫，这个是根据个人感觉改的。。你别抽打我哈。。我是看你还要来改的，所以敢瞎说 =X=嘿嘿。。。

如果是我写的话，会找以下几个攻击点：
1.碳作为控制过程下生产的燃料，燃烧时比木头产生的烟少，烟少难道就能够作为比木头更好的理由么？且不论作者没有提出任何数据支撑产生烟的量是否达到致病的程度，我们也必须分析这两种燃料燃烧产生的smoke的成分，并不是肉眼所见的“量”就是准确的（这个Lucarl有写了，只是表达有点小乱）
2.碳仅仅比木头贵一点，但是产生同样热量却比木头的用量要小，言下之意就是碳甚至比木头更划算。这个不合理，跳过了从木头生产成碳的过程同样会产生费用，并且碳需要新的设备来供其燃烧，也是一笔额外的开支
3.关于保护环境的结论显然不合理，碳是由木头生产的，同样会引起deforestation，而且从木头到碳的过程也可能会产生对环境破坏的诸如气体、残渣之类的并生产物，这些作者都没有给出证据

BLA BLA BLA = =

lucarlUID：2616426

抱歉今天事儿太多，可能按时批不了了，不过刚才看了下家家的批改，觉得基本都说到点子上了，你可以先按照她的思想把文章调整一下再交给我改，效果会更好
irvine666 发表于 2009-6-27 20:52

恩，好的，今晚一定改完这篇文章！然后请66版主过目~  撒花，哈皮~有干劲儿~

还要特别鸣谢家家哦~

lucarlUID：2616426

TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.

"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem.事实 In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does论据1. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood事实, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat论据2. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship事实, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment作者结论."


作者逻辑链：
木材烟对人不好 + 木炭(来自木材)产的烟少 --> 木炭比木材环保\
木炭贵的不多 + 产生等量的热用的木炭较少 --> 木炭经济实惠  /

-->得出结论：用木炭代替木材做燃料


我要攻击第一个红色箭头：
1、木材不见得就比木炭烟多，因为作者只说了在使用过程中木炭的烟较少，但是在木材变成木炭的过程中有没有烟，有多少烟产生，没有这方面的信息。
2、即使木炭真的产生的烟较少，会不会木炭产生的烟对人体的危害更大呢？因为木炭可以视为一个木材的浓缩，所以才能够量少产烟多。可能随着而来的结果是烟少却更浓。（66，这里我用的让步不知道合适不合适，请你帮我仔细看一眼这一点，我看了你的heaven in flowers系列里关于让步的帖子，没有看的太明白，用这个实例给点儿指点吧，不胜感激~）
攻击第二个：
木炭价格比木材要低不假，但是可能需要新的装置才能正常使用。
第三个红箭头:
前两个不行，第三个自然也不攻自破了。
再补充一个他因（这里这段可能会和攻击作者的逻辑错误没什么关系，66鉴定一下，没用我就删）：
木炭比较黑，家里大量储存或经常使用，给清洁卫生带来麻烦，导致人们不想用。即使它的性价比要高。所以在提建议前要做足调查。


WORDS: 590

TIME:数不清-_- 一晚上修改了n遍

DATE: 2009-6-28 2:15:50

In this argument, based on the facts that smoke produced by wood causes respiratory and eye problems, while charcoal produces less smoke than wood does, and that charcoal which is slightly higher-priced, produces more heat than wood at the same amount, the author concluded that wood as primary heating fuel should be switched to charcoal. However, the writer neglected some alternatives which may undermine the reasoning of the argument.

First, it is entirely possible that, in the process of transfiguring wood into charcoal, considerable amount of smoke would be produced. The author stated that charcoal is a fuel which creates less smoke than wood does, but there is no information about the wood-to-charcoal process. If in this process, large amount of smoke is produced, the "charcoal creates less smoke" statement would mean nothing. The only difference is the smoke produced by wood separated into two parts, the first part is the smoke created when wood burnt into charcoal in factories, and the other part when charcoal is used for heating. If that is the case, both wood and charcoal are harmful to people’s health, as well as environment, because the quantity of smoke produced in each heating system are almost equal.

Even if the charcoal do produce less smoke than wood does, it's not safe to say that the smoke charcoal creates is no more harmful than that of wood. In common sense, more heating provided in smaller amount means high density. People would have confidence in thinking that smoke produced by charcoal, which is expected to be less, is denser than is that by wood.(这个句子属于尝试性写作，用的不对还请66详细讲解一下~) Perhaps, the denser the smoke is, the heavier the problems it causes in people’s health and deforestation. Thus, in this case, less smoke created by charcoal is not safer than more but lighter smoke produced by wood. It’s likely that people would stop at this consideration before adopting charcoal as their primary fuel.

Another factor involved is that the author stated that charcoal costs more than wood does, but apparently he or she concluded superficially. Along with the change of primary fuel, it is possible that some new devices should be planted in order to use charcoal. Maybe a stove in each house is necessary before burning charcoal as fuel. Maybe a steam dome, demanding considerable cost, needs to be built, of which the expense absorbed by all the users. Considering these fees, the cost of charcoal as primary fuel may significantly exceed that of wood, and thereby the author is losing his economical ground as well.

Besides, although charcoal is more productive in heating than wood, as a fuel it may causes other problems which prevent people from widely adopting it as primary fuel. For example, it's easy to understand that wood is better for house cleaning. In other words, the black charcoal may destroy the neatness and double the cleaning work. It's understandable for people not to use the charcoal as primary fuel, though possibly economical, because they do not want to clean their houses, or at least storehouses, more frequently than necessary. Changing the heating system, in this case switching primary fuel, is a large project deserves a poll to take into account the citizens’ opinions before merely take it into action.

To conclude, the author considered some alternatives successfully but neglected deeper reasons why charcoal is not adopted by most people, such as heavier smoke, cleaning burden. Therefore he failed to provide a well-reasoned argument.

66版主，今晚看了你的heaven in flowers才改的这篇a，学到了很多，开头，从常识推理，等等。虽然自己觉得已经比较拿得出手的程度（毕竟改了一晚上，没功劳还有苦劳呢-_-），但是这篇a还远不到令人满意的程度希望能得到更严厉狠批，做好准备了。

先谢过。

irvine666UID：2575525

TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.

"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."

In this argument, based on the facts that smoke produced by wood causes respiratory and eye problems, while charcoal produces less smoke than wood does, and that charcoal which is slightly higher-priced, produces more heat than wood at the same amount, the author concluded that wood as primary heating fuel should be switched to charcoal（这篇文章的conclusion不是这个，是后面的thereby）. However, the writer neglected some alternatives which may undermine the reasoning of the argument.

First, it is entirely possible that, in the process of transfiguring（这个词用的完全不对意思） wood into charcoal, considerable amount of smoke would be produced. The author stated that charcoal is a fuel which creates less smoke than wood does, but there is no information about the wood-to-charcoal process.（仍然重复过多，应该彻底改写。此外NO INFORMATION ABOUT这种论证句子我个人建议最好少用，因为无论多么严谨的论述，总会有NO INFORMATION ABOUT的地方的，这样论述会显得你这句话很无赖。我给你写个例子，以后可以考虑这么写：Althought it might be true that charcoal produces less smoke in burning than wood does, the author's conclusion might be somewhat too hasty for he/she failed to take the smoke produced in the wood-to-charcoal process into consideration. 这样就都是你自己的话了，完全没有抄任何题目的意思） If in this process, large amount of smoke is produced, the "charcoal creates less smoke" statement would mean nothing（逻辑推论错误。题目中你提到的那句话的意思是作为fuel，产生的烟雾少，并没有考虑到制造这个fuel的过程。所以你要反驳，也不能从charcoal creates less smoke入手，因为这句话确实是正确的。而只能从preserve the environment入手。事实上，你后文的论述实际上也是从preserve入手的。）. The only difference is (that) the smoke produced by wood （is） separated into two parts(一般我不改语法，不过这句实在是错的有点严重), the first part is the smoke created when wood burnt into charcoal in factories, and the other part when charcoal is used for heating. （smoke分成两部分，然后呢？没了？那怎么和你的TS扯得上关系？你至少漏掉了类似这样的话吧：So, to judge whether the fuel is less harmful to both people and the environment could not merely depend on its pollution in burning. ）If that is the case(一段话里面不要出现太多if,尤其是在你已经开始做结论的时候，if that is the case这种话其实只能暴露你心虚。), both wood and charcoal are harmful to people’s health, as well as environment, because the quantity of smoke produced in each heating system are almost equal.

Even if the charcoal do produce less smoke than wood does, it's not safe to say that the smoke charcoal creates is no more harmful than that of wood. In common sense, more heating provided in smaller amount means high density.（这个是什么common sense...我就可以反驳你核聚变里面的氢元素就不是这样的，还有酒精燃料也不是。） People would have confidence in thinking that smoke produced by charcoal, which is expected to be less, is denser（我认为这是个及其牵强的他因。或者可以说你这段都是很牵强的，请读题，题目里面有charcoal是partially burning wood做出来的，因此在这里讨论烟雾的有害物含量浓度并不适当。） than is that by wood.(这个句子属于尝试性写作，用的不对还请66详细讲解一下~)（句式没问题，逻辑很勉强而已） Perhaps, the denser the smoke is, the heavier the problems it causes in people’s health and deforestation（smoke怎么又跟deforestation扯上关系的...逻辑又开始跳跃了，同时那个 the heavier the problems是啥米玩意...）. Thus, in this case, less smoke created by charcoal is not safer than more but lighter smoke produced by wood.（这个句子乱死了...改一下。顺便，你这段论述里面，整个就是在说smoke可能浓度更高，但是论述并没有和人有直接的联系，这里突然跑出来一个safer又属于逻辑跳跃。） It’s likely that people would stop at this consideration before adopting charcoal as their primary fuel.

Another factor involved is that the author stated that charcoal costs more than wood does, but apparently he or she concluded superficially.（切记这种类型的句子，就是提出一大堆资料，让读者自己跑去猜你到底要论述的是哪一点，而且非常容易造成误解，以后绝对要彻底抛弃掉。A当中的句子一定要精确！精确到读者看了就知道你的原本意思。PS：而且综合了你下文的论述，我更糊涂了，你这个TS是想说明个啥米？） Along with the change of primary fuel, it is possible that some new devices should be planted in order to use charcoal. Maybe a stove in each house is necessary before burning charcoal as fuel. Maybe a steam dome, demanding considerable cost, needs to be built, of which the expense absorbed by all the users. Considering these fees, the cost of charcoal as primary fuel may significantly exceed that of wood, and thereby the author is losing his economical ground as well.(这些论述怎么能写到经济背景去的？这个话题偏的一塌糊涂...题目提到charcoal的价格的目的是啥？是people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship，switch to charcoal。他所关注的对象，换言之就是："用户"。 跟你的经济形势，跟你的蒸气设备，跟你的new devices那是一毛钱的关系都没有...而且从常识来看，燃烧木炭需要new devices么？不要关注过于小概率的可能性，这只能降低你的说服力，合理的他因才是最重要的。总的来讲，这段真的是彻底的悲剧了)

Besides, although charcoal is more productive in heating than wood, as a fuel it may causes other problems which prevent people from widely adopting it as primary fuel. For example, it's easy to understand that wood is better for house cleaning. In other words, the black charcoal may destroy the neatness and double the cleaning work. It's understandable for people not to use the charcoal as primary fuel, though possibly economical, because they do not want to clean their houses, or at least storehouses, more frequently than necessary. Changing the heating system, in this case switching primary fuel, is a large project deserves a poll to take into account the citizens’ opinions before merely take it into action.

这段话我实在不明白你的论述突破口在什么地方。causes other problems仅仅只能说明可能推广上会遇到一些问题，但是，和题目所关注的preserve the environment和people's health有啥关系么？我只能把它看作是延伸性的话题了。
作为ISSUE，我是不反对，甚至比较推荐用一些延伸性的评论来完善你的话题和思维的，但是对A，延伸性的评论是绝对不应该出现的，因为A是驳论文，作者话里面明明就没有出现过的东西，你为什么能拿出来说明作者是错的？
请记住，A是考逻辑，特别是严格的逻辑关系，而不是I那样只要自圆其说的话，相对可以发散的逻辑关系。A里面所有的批驳点，必须一一跟原文对应才行。

To conclude, the author considered some alternatives successfully but neglected deeper reasons why charcoal is not adopted by most people, such as heavier smoke, cleaning burden. Therefore he failed to provide a well-reasoned argument.（结尾不改，个人习惯）

家家☆yoonjaeUID：2646910

66丫~~~ 辛苦辛苦~~~我刚刚啃完你考的那篇A，用时1小时，虽然限时失败【我一直毛限时过。。。】不过自己挺满意嘿嘿嘿。。给你捏捏肩~~多亏你指点丫 >3<

P.S不好意思Lucarl~ 水了你的楼。。。

lucarlUID：2616426

恩，谢谢66的批改，文章copy下来啦~晚上拿来修改~

p.s. 我的楼家家随便用，呵呵~

lucarlUID：2616426

一定要把这Argument写好了！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.

"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."

In this argument, based on the facts that smoke produced by wood causes respiratory and eye problems, while charcoal produces less smoke than wood does, and that charcoal which is slightly higher-priced, produces more heat than wood at the same amount, the author concluded that if wood, as primary heating fuel, is switched to charcoal, it is good for both people’s health and environment.
However, the writer neglected some alternatives which may undermine the reasoning of the argument.

First, it is entirely possible that, in the process of transforming
wood into charcoal, considerable amount of smoke would be produced. Although the smoke produced by charcoal is less than that by wood, the writer is too hasty to environmentally support the charcoal, for he or she failed to take the smoke created in the wood-to-charcoal process into consideration. If in this process, large amount of smoke is produced, the "charcoal preserves environment" statement would mean nothing. The only difference is that the smoke produced by wood is separated into two parts, the first part is the smoke created when wood burnt into charcoal in factories, and the other part when charcoal is used for heating. So, to judge whether charcoal is more beneficial for both people and environment, merely consider the amount of smoke pollution when burning is not enough. Therefore, both wood and charcoal are harmful to people’s health, as well as environment, because the quantity of smoke produced by charcoal could be equal to that by wood, even more.

Even if the charcoal do produce less smoke than wood does, it's not safe to say that the smoke charcoal creates is no more harmful than that of wood. Chemical reaction is very complex. The author didn’t rule out the possibility that some harmful smoke, which could be harmful to people’s health and environment, is produced when wood is partially burnt into charcoal. It’s not likely to provide a vacuum environment (if so, the cost of charcoal would be incredibly high, rather than without economical hardship) for burning wood into charcoal, in order to prevent other matters from participating the chemical process. Thus, in this case, without verifying the component of charcoal smoke, it’s not safe for people and environment to widely use charcoal as primary fuel


Another factor involved is that the author stated that charcoal costs more than wood does, but charcoal could demand some surcharge as for cleaning the house. As we know, because of its physical form, charcoal (which is black) causes more cleaning problems when using and storing, while using wood has no such concerns, or at least less than charcoal. Along with the change of primary fuel, it is possible that money and time spend on cleaning increases. As a result, the fees for cleaning up the house should be counted in before concluding that switching wood to charcoal won’t cause economical hardship.

To conclude, the author considered some alternatives successfully but neglected deeper reasons why charcoal is not adopted by most people, such as heavier smoke, cleaning burden. Therefore he failed to provide a well-reasoned argument.

附提纲：
1、需要考虑上wood-to-charcoal过程的产烟量
2、考虑wood-to-charcoal过程中可能参与进来的有害化学物质，导致charcoal燃烧时放出wood所没有的有害气体。
3、Charcoal对保洁有负面作用，为了打扫卫生，用户的开销进一步增加，导致charcoal性价比下降。