ARGUMENT71 同主题第二期.....写到想拿刀捅自己.....崩溃的边缘了..

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

In this argument, the arguer concludes that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to decline significantly due to that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore. Close scrutiny of the cited evidence, however, reveals it lends little support to the arguer’s conclusion.　（大段复述好象不太被提倡）

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies and the claim that the amount of electricity will decline significantly when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies. The claim that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less is under the precondition that the amount of the ore instead of copper is equal. It is highly possible that when extraction（extracting） the same amount of copper, the electricity consumed in new copper-extraction is equal to（too）, or even more than that in older method of copper-extraction. Before drawing any conclusion, the arguer should make sure that not only the amount of ore but also the amount of copper extracted is equal when comparing whether the newer or the older （new and old）method is more electricity saved （saves more electricity）.（这样批其实不是causal relationship的错误 ）


Furthermore, another flaw that the arguer makes is that he or she fails to take the proportion of copper into consideration. Since the fact, as the arguer points out, that 40 percent saved electricity is especially works（??）when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Contrarily, when the proportion of copper is low in the ore, the older method works（？再瞅一眼题目）. And besides, the arguer also gives us the information that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. （最好加上it is）Possible is that the majority of the ore is of low proportion of copper and therefore we can not say that the new method is worked in extracting those ore with low proportion. Even if it works, little evidence support that is will save（什么东东？） 40 percent electricity as expected since the fact that 40 percent saved electricity is worked especially when the cooper in ore in of high percent. Possible is that the new technologies of copper extraction will cost electricity as much as, or even more than the older method in extracting the ore with low proportion of copper.　（这一段批得没有逻辑感，东一句西一句，加上一些语法错误，更加不懂了）

Additionally, according to the two possibilities discussed above, whether the new technologies will put into mass copper extraction is open to doubt. Since that when extracted the same amount of copper, the new method of copper extraction has the possibility of consuming more electricity, the new copper-extraction technologies will not be adopted. What’s more, for the fact that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably, as the arguer claims, use either of the two is not a sage way to save electricity, since each of them have their merits in special condition. So we should not adopt the new copper-extraction technologies instead of the older one, no mention to expect it will lead to the significant decline of electricity.（这一段没有批错误只是在总结，试试用Even if 新方法省电，再找错误）

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer must provide detail information about extracting the same amount of copper which method is more electricity saving（？）. What’s more, to bolster this argument, the arguer should take the percent of ore with high proportion of copper into consideration.　（关于结尾要不要提建议，偶也迷茫的说）

总体讲，逻辑错误没有找全，每个错误的批驳比较乱，还有一些语法错误．
这是我的文，狂拍吧．https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=494096&extra=page%3D1

dicmiUID: 183392

In this argument, the arguer concludes that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to decline significantly due to that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore.[这句话太长了，分成两句，用逗号分开，不然看着很累噢] Close scrutiny of the cited evidence, however, reveals it lends little support to the arguer’s conclusion.

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies and the claim that the amount of electricity will decline significantly when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies. [这句话也是一样的长，建议分成两句，而且你说的causal relationship意义不是很明确。最重要的，你把总用电量不必然减少这个错误提到前面来写了，本来应该是在后面的吧，如楼上所讲的，这个也不是因果错误，而是incomplete thoughts 错误] The claim that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less is under the precondition that the amount of the ore instead of copper is equal. It is highly possible that when extraction the same amount of copper, the electricity consumed in new copper-extraction is equal to, even more than that in older method of copper-extraction. Before drawing any conclusion, the arguer should make sure that not only the amount of ore but also the amount of copper extracted is equal when comparing whether the newer or the older method is more electricity saved.


Furthermore, another flaw that the arguer makes is that he or she fails to take the proportion of copper into consideration. Since the fact, as the arguer points out, that 40 percent saved electricity is especially works when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Contrarily, when the proportion of copper is low in the ore, the older method works. And besides, the arguer also gives us the information that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Possible [。。这个楼上指出来了] is that the majority of the ore is of low proportion of copper and therefore we can not say that the new method is worked in extracting those ore with low proportion. Even if it works, little evidence support that is will save 40 percent electricity as expected since the fact that 40 percent saved electricity is worked especially when the cooper in ore in of high percent. Possible is that the new technologies of copper extraction will cost electricity as much as, or even more than the older method in extracting the ore with low proportion of copper.

Additionally, according to the two possibilities discussed above, whether the new technologies will put into mass copper extraction is open to doubt. Since that when extracted the same amount of copper, the new method of copper extraction has the possibility of consuming more electricity, the new copper-extraction technologies will not be adopted. What’s more, for the fact that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably, as the arguer claims, use either of the two is not a sage way to save electricity, since each of them have their merits in special condition. So we should not adopt the new copper-extraction technologies instead of the older one, no mention to expect it will lead to the significant decline of electricity.

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer must provide detail information about extracting the same amount of copper which method is more electricity saving. What’s more, to bolster this argument, the arguer should take the percent of ore with high proportion of copper into consideration. [结尾的建议可以题的，范文里面有，而且ETS也灭有说什么，确切的讲，ets对结尾不是很关心。]

[In conclusion, 你没有必要非得弄成三段，这个不是定好的。其次要注意批判的顺序，这点对于行文的层次和理清自己的思路是非常关键和重要的，
楼上指出来的，我就不重复了。
加油：）]

我的在这边，帮忙拍下哈
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-494076-1-1.html

runningpiggyUID: 194977

纯顶。。。不改argu。。

dicmiUID: 183392

倒。。。斑竹灌纯净水。。。

夜一UID: 2130338

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies and the claim that the amount of electricity will decline significantly when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies.
诶。。读起来有点像绕口令的说。。简易楼主相应简洁化
并不是说主题局不可以长，而是句子中between的两个个体太长了

It is highly possible that when extraction the same amount of copper, the electricity consumed in new copper-extraction is equal to, even more than that in older method of copper-extraction.
这里是不是应该讲一讲原因呢？

Contrarily, when the proportion of copper is low in the ore, the older method works.
我觉得这样写有些问题，原文虽然没有说明新技术是否对低含量矿石有效，但也不能将之等效与只有旧方法能处理这种矿石。既然原文没有说清楚，那么重点就应该是原文没有说清楚，而不是自己去推断一个情况。

Additionally, according to the two possibilities discussed above, whether the new technologies will put into mass copper extraction is open to doubt.
既然是additionally，那么与其according to the above，不如even if省电成立，否则读起来会怪怪的，因为要是省电不成立，应不应用都是一回事，就没有讨论应用与否的必要了

nostrumUID: 2124189

In this argument, the arguer concludes that we can expect the amount of electricity used by the cooper-extraction industry to decline significantly due to that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore. Close scrutiny of the cited evidence, however, reveals it lends little support to the arguer’s conclusion.

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies and the claim that the amount of electricity will decline significantly when we switch to new copper-extraction technologies. 我觉得把这个拆成两句来写比较好，读起来太长了The claim that the electricity used in copper-extraction is 40 percent less is under the precondition that the amount of the ore instead of copper is equal. It is highly possible that when extraction the same amount of copper, the electricity consumed in new copper-extraction is equal to, even more than that in older method of copper-extraction. Before drawing any conclusion, the arguer should make sure that not only the amount of ore but also the amount of copper extracted is equal when comparing whether the newer or the older method is more electricity saved.


Furthermore, another flaw that the arguer makesmade is that he or she fails to take the proportion of copper into consideration个人感觉还是take into consideration 放在一起顺畅一些. Since the fact, since the fact可以删掉as the arguer points out, that 40 percent saved electricity is especially works when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Contrarily, when the proportion of copper is low in the ore, the older method works.这里用比较级来表示更好一些，显得话说得没有那么满 And besides, the arguer also gives us the information that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Possiblepossiblity is that the majority of the ore is of low proportion of copper and therefore we can not say that the new method is worked in extracting those ore with low proportion. Even if it works, little evidence support that is will save 40 percent electricity as expected since the fact that 40 percent saved electricity is worked especially when the cooper in ore in of high percent.这句话lz精简下，还有就是用fact的同义词来替代，感觉很多fact Possible is that the new technologies of copper extraction will cost electricity as much as, or even more than the older method in extracting the ore with low proportion of copper.搞个具体的比较来一下更好啦
本段内部的逻辑顺序有点乱哈，在整理下
Additionally, according to the two possibilities discussed above, whether the new technologies will put into mass copper extraction is open to doubt. Since that when extracted the same amount of copper, the new method of copper extraction has the possibility of consuming more electricity, the new copper-extraction technologies will not be adopted. What’s more, for the fact that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably, as the arguer claims, use either of the two is not a sage way to save electricity, since each of them have their merits in special condition. So we should not adopt the new copper-extraction technologies instead of the older one, no mention to expect it will lead to the significant decline of electricity.这一段主要是逻辑关系弄得不好，我看晕了呀

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer must provide detail information about extracting the same amount of copper which method is more electricity saving. What’s more, to bolster this argument, the arguer should take the percent of ore with high proportion of copper into consideration.

我觉着主要的问题是文章不够清晰
但是lz没有必要那么痛苦吗
写的还可以得啦
这篇不是很难的吧
中等偏上难度

expire7UID: 2160574

这篇的确难得。加油，太累了，就纯水了。

kito9695UID: 209685

UP~
想来占座呢~这么火爆，这次算啦，先改别人的
下次改

728AWUID: 2216408

寄托的斑竹们都粉好啊~~

谢谢大家~~

lyoncoUID: 2200701

大家对语言都评过了，个人觉得搂主的问题在段落内的逻辑结构, which关系到论证的清晰和条理。