ARGUMENT71 同主题２期，留链接互拍

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

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.

A: 不能证明省电１：等量矿石不等于等量铜含量
B: 不能证明省电２：不清楚新方法对铜含量少的铜提纯的作用
C: 即使省电，不一定被广泛应用，而且可能导致铜提纯工业大兴
留链接，有拍必回

The argument is unconvincing since the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly bears no necessary correlation with the new copper-extraction technology.

Firstly, the assumption that the new method used less electricity than the older is ungrounded due to the flaw of the experiment. As the arguer cites, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. However, the experiment which shows the less electricity used by the new method, overlooks the influence of the proportion of copper. After all, the same amount of raw ore does not mean the same amount of copper, whereas the different proportion of copper would definitely affect the amount of using electricity. Perhaps the new method use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older but produce half amount of copper. Under this circumstance, the less electricity using the new method is not equal with economical than the older. Without ruling out the possible affect of different amount of copper, we can hardly draw the conclusion that the new method use less electricity the older.

Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out the affect on low proportion amount of copper in ore when using the new method. As the arguer cites, the new method “can use up to” 40 percent less electricity especially in high proportion amount of copper in ore. Thus we have not got any information about the effect on low proportion. If there is no remarkable effect on low proportion, how could we judge the affectivity of the new method on copper-extracting?

Finally, even though the new method is indeed effective on less electricity using, the arguer supposes that the new method is the only factor which influence the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, overlooking other possible circumstances. First, we cannot ensure that the new method would be used widely in copper-extraction industry. Maybe the new technology is advanced that the workers have to spend more time on studying and practicing. Or else, the cost is another possible influential factor of using the new method. Perhaps the price of new equipments cost too much that most factories cannot afford. Second, even if the new method is used widely, maybe the copper industry would develop. More factories started to produce copper, thus the productivity of copper is higher and higher. Accord with it, the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would increase definitely. Therefore, even if the new method does use less electricity than the older, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would decline is still unpersuasive.

In sum, the argument is based on an unreliable experimental, and overlooks other possible influential factors of amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, which leads the argument unconvincing.

728AWUID: 2216408

A: 不能证明省电１：等量矿石不等于等量铜含量
B: 不能证明省电２：不清楚新方法对铜含量少的铜提纯的作用
C: 即使省电，不一定被广泛应用，而且可能导致铜提纯工业大兴
留链接，有拍必回

The argument is unconvincing since the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly bears no necessary correlation with the new copper-extraction technology.

Firstly, the assumption that the new method used less electricity than the older is ungrounded due to the flaw of the experiment. As the arguer cites, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. However, the experiment which shows the less electricity used by the new method, overlooks the influence of the proportion of copper. After all, the same amount of raw ore does not mean the same amount of copper, whereas the different proportion of copper would definitely affect the amount of using electricity. Perhaps the new method use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older but produce half amount of copper. Under this circumstance, the less electricity using the new method is not equal with economical than the older.（谈到经济上来了，这也是我在写的时候想到的一点，可是原文并没有说新方法会更经济，只是说它会省电） Without ruling out the possible affect of different amount of copper, we can hardly draw the conclusion that the new method use less electricity the older.
（这段的意思我有点质疑，如果说批驳作者的观点是以理由“新方法提纯出的铜可能会很多，因为它多而导致用电量加大”的话，那么我们是否应该考虑如果提出相当多的铜，旧方法也不见得比新方法省电呢？）

Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out the affect on low proportion amount of copper in ore when using the new method. As the arguer cites, the new method “can use up to” 40 percent less electricity especially in high proportion amount of copper in ore. Thus we have not got any information about the effect on low proportion. If there is no remarkable effect on low proportion, how could we judge the affectivity of the new method on copper-extracting?
（恩，我要说的就是你这段的意思，我就没表达好）

Finally, even though the new method is indeed effective on less electricity using, the arguer supposes that the new method is the only factor which influence the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, overlooking other possible circumstances. First, we cannot ensure that the new method would be used widely in copper-extraction industry. Maybe the new technology is advanced that the workers have to spend more time on studying and practicing. Or else, the cost is another possible influential factor of using the new method. Perhaps the price of new equipments cost too much that most factories cannot afford. Second, even if the new method is used widely, maybe the copper industry would develop. More factories started to produce copper, thus the productivity of copper is higher and higher. Accord with it, the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would increase definitely. Therefore, even if the new method does use less electricity than the older, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would decline is still unpersuasive.
（恩，这点向你学习）
In sum, the argument is based on an unreliable experimental, and overlooks other possible influential factors of amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, which leads the argument unconvincing. （我怎么记得我看的资料里都是推荐最后一段要提出文章应该如何改进才好？）

CONCLUSION:as what you see from my article, my grammar is poor so that I can not pick up grammar mistakes in ur essay, what I could do is to check the logical line in ur essay and give advises to you and learn much by the way.
thank you for pointing the mistakes in my essay.
and bless u can meet the essay you have ever written in the test day.

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

＂（这段的意思我有点质疑，如果说批驳作者的观点是以理由“新方法提纯出的铜可能会很多，因为它多而导致用电量加大”的话，那么我们是否应该考虑如果提出相当多的铜，旧方法也不见得比新方法省电呢？）＂偶的意思是没有考虑铜含量的多少，不同的铜会用不同的电．相同的铜含量与同纯度，新旧方法一定提出的铜一样多（假定题目中的提纯都是完全提纯）．但考虑两个same amount of raw ore，不一定铜含量一样多，用两种不同方法得出的不同耗电量没有可比性．（不知道有木有讲清楚）

刚才又看下官方范文，哪种结尾都有，似乎无所谓的说

谢谢回拍，加油

[ 本帖最后由 ddloveyy 于 2006-7-14 00:29 编辑 ]

bigox343UID: 188550

The argument is unconvincing since the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly bears no necessary correlation with the new copper-extraction technology.（开头简洁，明了）

Firstly, the assumption that the new method used less electricity than the older is ungrounded due to the flaw of the experiment. As the arguer cites, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. However, the experiment which shows the less electricity used by the new method, overlooks the influence of the proportion of copper. After all, the same amount of raw ore does not mean the same amount of copper, whereas the different proportion of copper would definitely affect the amount of using electricity. Perhaps the new method use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older but produce(only) half amount of copper. Under this circumstance, the less electricity using the new method is not equal with economical than the older(这句感觉有些问题）. Without ruling out the possible affect（effct） of different amount of copper, we can hardly draw the conclusion that the new method use less electricity the older.

Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out the affect on low proportion amount of copper in ore when using the new method. As the arguer cites, the new method “can use up to” 40 percent less electricity especially in high proportion amount of copper in ore. Thus we have not got any information about the effect on low proportion. If there is no remarkable effect on low proportion, how could we judge the affectivity of the new method on copper-extracting?

Finally, even though the new method is indeed effective on less electricity using, the arguer supposes that the new method is the only factor which influence the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, overlooking other possible circumstances. First, we cannot ensure that the new method would be used widely in copper-extraction industry. Maybe the new technology is advanced that the workers have to spend more time on studying and practicing. Or else, the cost is another possible influential factor of using the new method. Perhaps the price of new equipments cost too much that most factories cannot afford. Second, even if the new method is used widely, maybe the copper industry would develop.（这句移到后面一句后面比较好） More factories started to produce copper, thus the productivity of copper is higher and higher. Accord(ing) with it, the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would increase definitely. Therefore, even if the new method does use less electricity than the older, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would decline is still unpersuasive.

In sum, the argument is based on an unreliable experimental, and overlooks other possible influential factors of amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, which leads the argument unconvincing(最好能说明改进方法）

楼主思路很清晰，展开说明比较详细
向你学习，共同进步！

渡渡鸟UID: 145880

The argument is unconvincing since the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly bears no necessary correlation with the new copper-extraction technology.

Firstly, the assumption that the new method used less electricity than the older is ungrounded due to the flaw of the experiment. As the arguer cites, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. However, the experiment which shows the less electricity used by the new method, overlooks the influence of the proportion of copper. After all, the same amount of raw ore does not mean the same amount of copper, whereas the different proportion of copper would definitely affect the amount of using electricity. Perhaps the new method use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older but produce half amount of copper. Under this circumstance, the less electricity using the new method is not equal with economical than the older. Without ruling out the possible affect of different amount of copper, we can hardly draw the conclusion that the new method use less electricity the older.(感觉第一段论述有点问题，意思说的不是很清楚，要表达提纯量的意思么？)

Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out the affect on low proportion amount of copper in ore when using the new method. As the arguer cites, the new method “can use up to” 40 percent less electricity especially in high proportion amount of copper in ore. Thus we have not got any information about the effect on low proportion. If there is no remarkable effect on low proportion, how could we judge the affectivity of the new method on copper-extracting?

Finally, even though the new method is indeed effective on less electricity using, the arguer supposes that the new method is the only factor which influence the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, overlooking other possible circumstances.（TS感觉有问题，没有逻辑关系） First, we cannot ensure that the new method would be used widely in copper-extraction industry. Maybe the new technology is advanced that the workers have to spend more time on studying and practicing. Or else, the cost is another possible influential factor of using the new method. Perhaps the price of new equipments cost too much that most factories cannot afford. Second, （这段我觉得可以单独作为一段，因为攻击的是文章的结论）even if the new method is used widely, maybe the copper industry would develop. More factories started to produce copper, thus the productivity of copper is higher and higher. Accord with it, the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would increase definitely. Therefore, even if the new method does use less electricity than the older, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would decline is still unpersuasive.

In sum, the argument is based on an unreliable experimental, and overlooks other possible influential factors of amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, which leads the argument unconvincing.

逻辑错误找的挺全的，一层一层，再把第一段修改一下吧，明确些~

[ 本帖最后由 渡渡鸟 于 2006-7-14 10:04 编辑 ]

xinxinwUID: 2144273

The argument is unconvincing since the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly bears no necessary correlation with the new copper-extraction technology.（稍微短了一点，扩展一下模版吧。另外你这句话实际上也是一个claim,argument是驳论，是要指出作者的逻辑错误，而不立新的结论）

Firstly, the assumption that the new method used less electricity than the older is ungrounded due to the flaw of the experiment. As the arguer cites, the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. However, the experiment which shows the less electricity used by the new method, overlooks the influence of the proportion of copper. After all, the same amount of raw ore does not mean the same amount of copper, whereas the different proportion of copper would definitely affect the amount of using electricity. Perhaps the new method use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older but produce half amount of copper. Under this circumstance, the less electricity using the new method is not equal with economical than the older（这句有点别扭阿）. Without ruling out the possible affect（搞个名词上来吧，factor？） of different amount of copper, we can hardly draw the conclusion that the new method use less electricity the older.（这句可以改成倒装，丰富一下句式）

Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out the affect on low proportion amount of copper in ore when using the new method. As the arguer cites, the new method “can use up to” 40 percent less electricity especially in high proportion amount of copper in ore. Thus we have not got any information about the effect on low proportion. If there is no remarkable effect on low proportion, how could we judge the affectivity of the new method on copper-extracting?

Finally, even though the new method is indeed effective on less electricity using, the arguer supposes that the new method is the only factor which influence the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, overlooking other possible circumstances. First, we cannot ensure that the new method would be used widely in copper-extraction industry. Maybe the new technology is advanced that the workers have to spend more time on studying and practicing. Or else, the cost is another possible influential factor of using the new method. Perhaps the price of new equipments cost too much that most factories cannot afford. Second, even if the new method is used widely, maybe the copper industry would develop. More factories started to produce copper, thus the productivity of copper is higher and higher. Accord with it, the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would increase definitely. Therefore, even if the new method does use less electricity than the older, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry would decline is still unpersuasive.

In sum, the argument is based on an unreliable experimental, and overlooks other possible influential factors of amount of electricity used by copper-extraction industry, which leads the argument unconvincing.