Argument71 [Jet小组}第六次作业

macross_36UID: 2306285

argument 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.

The conclusion of this argument is that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry is to decline significantly.To justify this conclusion the argument points out that it is the only way to extract pure copper from ore by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy.Also, the argument points out that new copper-extracting technology 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. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the argument claims that there is actually only one way to extract pure copper from ore which is by using a process that requires considerable amounts of electric energy without any substantiate evidence. As science and technology is developing rapidly, perhaps there is a way to extract pure copper by using solar energy or wind energy which is unknown to the arguer. Or perhaps this new way will be invited recently. In short, without substantiate evidence that the process which requires large amounts of electric energy is definitely the only way the arguer cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion.

Secondly, the arguer fails to show any valuable statistics to explain how large the amounts of electric energy the process would use and how much electric energy the new copper-extracting technologies can save. Perhaps the energy the new copper-extracting way can save makes little contribution to copper-extraction industry. In sum, it is unfair to conclude that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry is to decline significantly.


Thirdly, the arguer unfairly assumes that the old copper-extracting way will be replaced by the new one. Although the new way save electric energy, it is possible that they have to buy some new machines that are required by the new copper-extracting technologies. Moreover, they have to hire several experts to operate the new machines. As a result, the high cost which is due to the new copper-extracting technologies may block the new way from extending. Given these possible scenarios, the arguer’s conclusion is unpersuasive.

In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clear evidence to claim that there is actually only one way to extract pure copper and give substantiate statistics to show that the electric energy the new copper-extracting technologies can save is large enough to affect copper-extraction industry. The arguer must also assure me that the new way will transcend the old way at any aspect.

[ 本帖最后由 macross_36 于 2008-2-15 16:09 编辑 ]

leftkissUID: 2347956

:)
字数：436
The conclusion of this argument is that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry is to decline significantly. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that it is the only way to extract pure copper from ore by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy. Also, the argument points out that new copper-extracting technology 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. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
最好转述不要抄，而且简述（我也有这个问题）

First of all, the argument claims that there is actually only one way to extract pure copper from ore which is by using a process that requires considerable amounts of electric energy without any substantiate evidence.（这个句子有点太长了，而且有俩个从句，考虑状语看看） As science and technology is developing rapidly, perhaps there is a way to extract pure copper by using solar energy or wind energy which is unknown to the arguer. Or （递进And then是否更好？） perhaps this new way will be invited recently. In short, without substantiate evidence that the process which requires large amounts of electric energy is definitely the only way the arguer cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion.

Secondly, the arguer fails to show any valuable statistics to explain how large the amounts of electric energy the process（不明确，你想说哪种方法的？还是一般水平的用电量） would use and how much electric energy the new copper-extracting technologies can save. Perhaps the energy the new copper-extracting way can save makes little contribution to copper-extraction industry.（为什么？加点原因论述更有说服力） In sum, it is unfair to conclude that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry is to decline significantly.
这一段的他因论述过于简略，没有说服力

Thirdly, the arguer unfairly assumes that the old copper-extracting way will be replaced by the new one. Although the new way save electric energy, it is possible that they have to buy some new machines that are required by the new copper-extracting technologies. Moreover, they have to hire several experts to operate the new machines. As a result, the high cost which is due to the new copper-extracting technologies may block the new way from extending. Given these possible scenarios, the arguer’s conclusion is unpersuasive.
这段非常好！赞！！

In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clear evidence to claim that there is actually only one way to extract pure copper and give substantiate statistics to show that the electric energy the new copper-extracting technologies can save is large enough to affect copper-extraction industry. The arguer must also assure me that the new way will transcend the old way at any aspect.

小结：
1转述的问题，这方面我自己也很严重：照抄而且拖沓，我就是这样，所以要练练了
2针对这一篇，有一个错误我觉得很重要，但是没有说，就是俩种方法比较时，只说new尤其对含铜量高时很有效，我觉得是突破口，你说呢？
3每一段提出批驳点的句子有一点长
（其实我也同样有1 ，3的问题，而且比你还严重～擦汗……所以说的有点狠了，见谅^^）
Ps语言不错，学习ing～加油！！


[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-16 16:41 编辑 ]