Argument71 同一主题第二期_By undoerlc

undoerlcUID: 194641

TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - 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.
驳斥思路:
(1)新的技术不一定比老的省电
(2)即使省电不一定被产业化
(3)即使产业化工业用电不一定会下降
WORDS: 530          TIME: 1:00:00          DATE: 2006-7-13

In this argument, the author concludes that the electricity employed by the copper-extraction industry will drop dramatically. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that the new technologies can reduce 40 percent electricity during the process when ore preserves high proportion of copper. Moreover, the author assumes that the new technology will reduce the using of electricity and thus, the industry is bound to use it and then the employment of electricity of the industry should decline significantly. This argument rests on a number of dubious assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

First of all, the author assumes without justification that the new technology will reduce the consuming of electricity when extracting copper in ore. The instance cited, while suggestive in trends, is inadequate to warrant its truth. For example, it is entirely possible that the new technology consumes much more electricity than it reduces when managing the low copper proportion ore, and since the proportion of copper in ore varies significantly, therefore, we have no reason to believe the electricity consuming will reduce. Even if the new technology performs excellence in ore, there is no reason to believe its effectiveness of extracting copper is better than the old one, possibly it yields less copper than the old one with the same amount of ore and electricity, so the industry still have to consume more power when extracting the same amout of copper. Therefore, the argument is untenable as it stands.

Even if the new technology surpass the old one in all perspective and the consuming of electricity will reduce after using the new technology, the argument still counts on the assumption that the industry will use the new one immediately. However, on evidence is stated in this argument to substantiate this assumption. Consideration of the revolution of the industry should be especially cautious and all-around, it should be determined on various of perspectives rather than just the electricity usage. It is entirely possible that the industry cannot draw back the money it would spent on the new equipment which it might employ. Moreover, herhaps the old one is much safer than the new one in using. Therefore, without strutinizing the other possible consideration of the industry and ruling out them, renders the argument based upon it highly suspicious.

Thirdly, even if the industry employs the new technology, the author still commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" in presuming that it will automatically make for the coming down of electricity usage. The author does not provide any evidence to uphold this claim. It is possible that the industry expands day and night, we need more copper than ever at the following time, therefore, the industry have to use more and more power to yield copper. Without ruling out such possibilities, it is impossible to assess the conclusion based upon it.

In summary, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should produce more concrete evidence to demonstrate that new technology will reduce the consuming of the electricity and the industry is going to apply it with only this consideration. To better evaluate it, we still need more information concerning the market capacity and the industry prospect.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
经word检查评错应该没了, 请大家狠狠得拍，拍好请留下连接~^_^ Merci~

[ 本帖最后由 undoerlc 于 2006-7-13 09:48 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

大致看了看，中间没有什么问题。逻辑上也不错。有一些小的错误。

开头和结尾没有必要重复题目，请参看imong的关于这个的帖子。

undoerlcUID: 194641

谢谢! 是哪一个帖子呢?

expire7UID: 2160574

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=134092
这个。

undoerlcUID: 194641

谢谢,果然有用,一定要从第一性的ETS CRITERIA和范文出发推写法, 模版只是来带带写起来,顺了就应该仍掉

728AWUID: 2216408

In this argument, the author concludes that the electricity employed by the copper-extraction industry will drop dramatically. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that the new technologies can reduce 40 percent electricity during the process when ore preserves high proportion of copper. Moreover, the author assumes that the new technology will reduce the using of electricity and thus, the industry is bound to use it and then the employment of electricity of the industry should decline significantly. This argument rests on a number of dubious assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.（开头一定要简洁，蓝字后面的就简略概括一下吧）
First of all, the author assumes without justification that the new technology will reduce the consuming of electricity when extracting copper in ore. The instance cited, while suggestive in trends, is inadequate to warrant its truth. For example, it is entirely possible that the new technology consumes much more electricity than it reduces when managing the low copper proportion ore, and（去掉吧，然后这句就和后面形成一个整体了，否则都连成一片了） since the proportion of copper in ore varies significantly, therefore, we have no reason to believe the electricity consuming will reduce. Even if the new technology performs excellence in ore, there is no reason to believe its effectiveness（提这个就有点鸡蛋挑骨头的意思吧，换个攻击点） of extracting copper is better than the old one, possibly it yields less copper than the old one with the same amount of ore and electricity, so the industry still have to consume more power when extracting the same amout of copper. Therefore, the argument is untenable as it stands.

Even if the new technology surpass the old one in all perspective and the consuming of electricity will reduce after using the new technology, the argument still counts on the assumption that the industry will use the new one immediately. However, on evidence is stated in this argument to substantiate this assumption. Consideration of the revolution of the industry should be especially cautious and all-around, it should be determined on various of perspectives rather than just the electricity usage. It is entirely possible that the industry cannot draw back the money it would spent on the new equipment which it might employ. Moreover, herhaps the old one is much safer than the new one in using. Therefore,（这个后面就有点接的突然了，前面两句都说新方法不好，后面ＴＨＥＲＥＦＯＲＥ应该接个所以这个不会被很多企业接受，然后再接后面的话） without strutinizing the other possible consideration of the industry and ruling out them, renders the argument based upon it highly suspicious.

Thirdly, even if the industry employs the new technology, the author still commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" in presuming that it will automatically make for the coming down of electricity usage. The author does not provide any evidence to uphold this claim. It is possible that the industry expands day and night, we need more copper than ever at the following time, therefore, the industry have to use more and more power to yield copper. （还可以说，既然新方法很好用，会有更多的铜被提取，这样被提取的铜的总量增加导致了电量的增加）Without ruling out such possibilities, it is impossible to assess the conclusion based upon it.

In summary, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should produce more concrete evidence to demonstrate that new technology will reduce the consuming of the electricity and the industry is going to apply it with only this consideration. To better evaluate it, we still need more information concerning the market capacity and the industry prospect.

恩，很有自己的模式，条理也很清楚．提了一些小意见，　如果哪里不对，请回贴指正

这是我的作业～帮忙看一下～

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

In this argument, the author concludes that the electricity employed by the copper-extraction industry will drop dramatically. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that the new technologies can reduce 40 percent electricity during the process when ore preserves high proportion of copper. Moreover, the author assumes that the new technology will reduce the using of electricity and thus, the industry is bound to use it and then the employment of electricity of the industry should decline significantly. This argument rests on a number of dubious assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.　（毛病斑斑讲过了）

First of all, the author assumes without justification that the new technology will reduce the consuming of electricity when extracting copper in ore. The instance cited, while suggestive in trends, is inadequate to warrant its truth. （没有指出错误的TS）For example, it is entirely possible that the new technology consumes much more electricity than it reduces when managing the low copper proportion ore, and since the proportion of copper in ore varies significantly, therefore, we have no reason to believe the electricity consuming will reduce. Even if the new technology performs excellence （excellently）in ore, there is no reason to believe its effectiveness of extracting copper is better than the old one, possibly it yields less copper than the old one with the same amount of ore and electricity, so the industry still have to consume more power when extracting the same amout of copper. Therefore, the argument is untenable as it stands.　（本段论证有跳跃感，句句间缺乏逻辑联系）

Even if the new technology surpasses the old one in all perspective and the consuming of electricity will reduce after using the new technology, the argument still counts on the assumption that the industry will use the new one immediately. However, on （no）evidence is stated in this argument to substantiate this assumption. （同上段此处）Consideration of the revolution of the industry should be especially cautious and all-around, it should be determined on various of perspectives rather than just the electricity usage. It is entirely possible that the industry cannot draw back the money it would spent on the new equipment which it might employ. Moreover, herhaps the old one is much safer than the new one in using. Therefore, without strutinizing the other possible consideration of the industry and ruling out them, renders the argument based upon it highly suspicious.　（本段相对比较连贯）

Thirdly, even if the industry employs the new technology, the author still commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" in presuming that it will automatically make for the coming down of electricity usage. The author does not provide any evidence to uphold this claim. It is possible that the industry expands day and night, we need more copper than ever at the following time, therefore, the industry have to use more and more power to yield copper. Without ruling out （上段结尾就是它）such possibilities, it is impossible to assess the conclusion based upon it.

In summary, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should produce more concrete evidence to demonstrate that new technology will reduce the consuming of the electricity and the industry is going to apply it with only this consideration. To better evaluate it, we still need more information concerning the market capacity and the industry prospect.  （谁能告诉我结尾到底要不要提建议？）
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
总体讲思路很好，具体每个错误的批驳欠缺完整的逻辑感．
另：LZ的段首TS都是先引作者，再讲is inadequate to warrant 或者no evidence，实际上并没有指出错误，thesis也不明显，是不是应该一针见血更好呢？

偶的文，表客气．
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=494096&extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 ddloveyy 于 2006-7-14 00:45 编辑 ]

panegyricUID: 2218502

驳斥思路:
(1)新的技术不一定比老的省电
(2)即使省电不一定被产业化
(3)即使产业化工业用电不一定会下降
WORDS: 530          TIME: 1:00:00          DATE: 2006-7-13

In this argument, the author concludes that the electricity employed by the copper-extraction industry will drop dramatically. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that the new technologies can reduce 40 percent electricity during the process when ore preserves high proportion of copper. Moreover, the author assumes that the new technology will reduce the using of electricity and thus, the industry is bound to use it and then the employment of electricity of the industry should decline significantly. This argument rests on a number of dubious assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.这一段的叙述过于繁冗,可以简化,只说要点

First of all, the author assumes without justification that the new technology will reduce the consuming of electricity when extracting copper in ore. The instance cited, while suggestive in trends这个短语用的不好, is inadequate to warrant its truth. For example, it is entirely possible that the new technology consumes much more electricity than it reduces when managing the low copper proportion ore, and since the proportion of copper in ore varies significantly, therefore, we have no reason to believe the electricity consuming will reduce.这里最好详细的说一下 Even if the new technology performs excellence in ore, there is no reason to believe its effectiveness of extracting copper is better than the old one, possibly it yields less copper than the old one with the same amount of ore and electricity, so the industry still have to consume more power when extracting the same amout of copper. Therefore, the argument is untenable as it stands.这个效率我没有写进去,借鉴一下

Even if the new technology surpass the old one in all perspective and the consuming of electricity will reduce after using the new technology, the argument still counts on the assumption that the industry will use the new one immediately. However, on evidence is stated in this argument to substantiate this assumption. Consideration 这个词最好换一下of the revolution of the industry should be especially cautious and all-around, it should be determined on various of perspectives rather than just the electricity usage. It is entirely possible that the industry cannot draw back the money it would spent on the new equipment which it might employ. Moreover, herhaps the old one is much safer than the new one in using. Therefore, without strutinizing the other possible consideration of the industry and ruling out them, renders the argument based upon it highly suspicious.

Thirdly, even if the industry employs the new technology, the author still commits a fallacy of "hasty generalization" in presuming that it will automatically make for the coming down of electricity usage. The author does not provide any evidence to uphold this claim. It is possible that the industry expands day and night, we need more copper than ever at the following time, therefore, the industry have to use more and more power to yield copper. Without ruling out such possibilities, it is impossible to assess the conclusion based upon it.这一段最好从供求关系来说会更好的

In summary, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should produce more concrete evidence to demonstrate that new technology will reduce the consuming of the electricity and the industry is going to apply it with only this consideration. To better evaluate it, we still need more information concerning the market capacity and the industry prospect.  
总体来说语言还是很好的 ,逻辑也不错,就是有些用词觉得不是很恰当
我的argument:多谢了
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

liuxing3322UID: 2189448

有人帮我改改就好了！

jojocuteUID: 2187294

先赞一个，lz写得真得不错，只是第一段的逻辑有点乱， 我是找你的提纲来写的，主要在的一段加工了一下，感觉说得还不是很好，希望交流一下，另外，开头在斑竹的帮助下已经攻克了，可不知道结尾这样处理好不好，也希望各位牛牛的点评

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1