argument71 [Jet小组] 第六次作业～～欢迎互拍啊～^^

leftkissUID: 2347956

:)
71.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.


提纲：结论总用电量会减少
1处理同样矿石量时，新方法用电量少，尤其是含铜量高时，但是没有说明矿石中的含量是否相同，错误的比较;
2而且没有说明新反方法对于铜含量低的矿石是否有效，基于此新的就未必能够代替老的considering that老的是处理低含量的有效方法
3就算以上都对，但是由材料recently仍然是老方法是有效的方法，所以新方法没有得到推广；且没有说明新法的优越性，未必会得到推广－－>总用电量未必会下降，而且考虑到铜矿的情况还有技术推广问题，用电量可能会up或者持平

字数：424～还米有限时～呵呵～虽然不多～但是这是偶的追求啊^^

The arguer drew a superficial conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decrease significantly. However, the argument is suffered several logical flaws after close scrutiny. I will show you in details.

To begin with, the first problem with the argument lies in the false contrast. 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. However, the contrast between the new and the old method only base on the same quality of the raw ore with the unknown proportion of copper in the ore. As the argument showed us that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably, there undoubtedly exists the probability that the significant decreasing electricity assumption of the new method attributes to the higher copper proportion rather than the difference between the two processes.

Admittedly, I concede that the contrast is based on parallel conditions, the arguer also fails to illustrate that the new one would play as well as the high copper proportion when the proportion is low without any further information. Considering the situation above, the analogy seems to be groundless. Moreover, the possibility that the new one will replace the old is likely to be narrow. If it is the case, it would impair the assertion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry decline significantly in the future.

Finally, according to the argument we know that the old one is still the only way to extract pure copper from ore especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low at fairly recent. It is nature to suspect the generalization of the new process. The arguer provided us no detailed information about the new method on its advantages and disadvantages. We also know little about the copper producers’ attitude toward it. Considering all discussed above, how can we draw a conclusion mentioned in the argument so easily on an instable basement? Even assuming that the new method would popular before long, the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would be steady what worse might increase because that the assumption of electricity influence by many factors such as the quality of the ore.   

To sum up, the conclusion in the argument is incredible. To corroborate it, the author should give us more information consisted of advantages, disadvantages and the potential of generalization, ruling out all the other possibilities lying in the way.

欢迎大家互改～留链回拍哦～:loveliness: 终于没有迟到啊～


[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-13 18:32 编辑 ]

macross_36UID: 2306285

The arguer drew a superficial conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decrease significantly. However, the argument is suffered several logical flaws after close scrutiny. I will show you in details.

To begin with, the first problem with the argument lies in the false contrast. 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. However, the contrast between the new and the old method only base on the same quality of the raw ore with the unknown proportion of copper in the ore. As the argument showed us that the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably, there undoubtedly exists the probability that the significant decreasing electricity assumption of the new method attributes to the higher copper proportion rather than the difference between the two processes.

Admittedly(这个词表示”不得不承认”,和后面的concede发生了矛盾), I concede that the contrast is based on parallelconditions, the arguer also fails toillustrate (后面说without any further information表示否定,和这里的fails to illustrate好像不搭配,改成claims) that the new one would play as well as the high copper proportion when the proportion is low without any further information. Considering the situation above, the analogy seems to be groundless. Moreover, the possibility that the new one will replace the old is likely to be narrow. If it is the case, it would impair the assertion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry decline significantly in the future.

Finally, according to the argument we know that the old one is still the only way to extract pure copper from ore especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low at fairly recent. It is nature to suspect the generalization of the new process. The arguer provided us no detailed information about the new method on its advantages and disadvantages. We also know little about the copper producers’ attitude toward(-s) it. Considering all (the possibilities) discussed above, how can we draw a conclusion mentioned in the argument so easily on an instable basement? Even assuming that the new method would (be) popular before long, the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would be steady what worse might increase(看不明白) because that(去掉) the assumption of electricity (is) influence(-d) by many factors such as the quality of the ore.   

To sum up, the conclusion in the argument is incredible. To corroborate it, the author should give us more information consisted of advantages, disadvantages (of the new way) and the potential of generalization, ruling out all the other possibilities lying in the way.


总结：作者的论点很清楚，语句也很出色，有不少闪光句型和出彩词汇，看得出作者的模板已经很完善了。如果可以再在非模板句子的地方表达的更简洁清楚一定可以更上一层楼。



[ 本帖最后由 macross_36 于 2008-2-16 17:31 编辑 ]