Argument71 同一主题第二期_By bigox343

bigox343UID: 188550

The argument is well presented but not throughly reasoned.By citing the fact that extracting copper needs lots of electric energy and  new copper-extracting technologies use less electric energy than the old way when the proportion of the ore is high,the argument suffers from several fallacies.I will discuss them in turn.

To begin with,the fact that new technologies use less electricity when the proportion of copper in the ore is high is open to doubt.We are not informed who get the result, and where and when was the reslut established.It is entirely possible that the result was established under special circumstances and other much careful testification.Then we have good reasons to doubt whether the result can be authoritative and representative.Therefore,the fact is  unreliable.

In the second place,the author provides no evidence indicating that the only way to extract pure copper from ore is by using a process that costs  large amounts of electric energy.It is possible that there exists  better methods for extracting which cost much less energy.It is also likely that even using the process mentioned in the argument,if  we adopt more advanced equipment and more skilled workers,the  cost of electric energy would be equally less than before.Without ruling out  these factors,we can not agree with the author in this point.

Even if the foregoing facts are true,the author unfairly assumes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry  is to decline signigicantly.Firstly, it is possible that when the proportiong of copper in the ore is low,new technologies are not  much mores energy-saving   compared  with the old ways .Also,maybe for most cases,the proportion of copper in ore is comparatively low,then the significant  decline of  electricity is doubtful.Secondly,even if the amount of electricity  is going to  decrease heavily ,the author fails to provide more infomation about the new technologies.It is probable that the costs of new technologies   are much larger than the reducing costs of electricity that many coporations give up to adopt the new technologies. It is also possible that the new technologies may  bring about  more serious environmental problems,such as noise pollution, air pollution,water pollution and so forth.Hence,the conclusion is unpersuasive ad it stands.

To sum up,the agrument is groudless as discussed above.To bolster it, the author has to provide more credible evidence  showing that the fact new technologies use less electricity is convincing.Moreover,the author also has to prove that new technologies are also more energy-saving when the proportion of copper in ore is low.To better assess the argument,we need more information about the new technologies,including the costs,whether causing enviromental problems and so forth.

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

The argument is well presented but not throughly (thoroughly?)reasoned.By citing the fact that extracting copper needs lots of electric energy and  new copper-extracting technologies use less electric energy than the old way when the proportion of the ore is high,the argument suffers from several fallacies.I will discuss them in turn (多余的话，而且显得很不专业).

To begin with,the fact that new technologies use less electricity when the proportion of copper in the ore is high is open to doubt.We are not informed who get the result, and where and when was the reslut established.It is entirely possible that the result was established under special circumstances and other much careful testification.Then we have good reasons to doubt whether the result can be authoritative and representative.Therefore,the fact is  unreliable. (不是逻辑错误不要批)

In the second place,the author provides no evidence indicating that the only way to extract pure copper from ore is by using a process that costs  large amounts of electric energy.It is possible that there exists  better methods for extracting which cost much less energy.It is also likely that even using the process mentioned in the argument,if  we adopt more advanced equipment and more skilled workers,the  cost of electric energy would be equally less than before.Without ruling out  these factors,we can not agree with the author in this point. (同上段)

Even if the foregoing facts are true,the author unfairly assumes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry  is to decline signigicantly.Firstly, it is possible that when the proportiong of copper in the ore is low,new technologies are not  much mores energy-saving   compared  with the old ways .Also,maybe for most cases,the proportion of copper in ore is comparatively low,then the significant  decline of  electricity is doubtful. (咋就doubtful，相当于没批)Secondly,even if the amount of electricity  is going to  decrease heavily ,the author fails to provide more infomation about the new technologies.It is probable that the costs of new technologies   are much larger than the reducing costs of electricity that many coporations give up to adopt the new technologies. It is also possible that the new technologies may  bring about  more serious environmental problems,such as noise pollution, air pollution,water pollution and so forth.Hence,the conclusion is unpersuasive ad it stands. (这段终于在批逻辑错误了，可惜没展开，只是罗列)

To sum up,the agrument is groudless as discussed above.To bolster it, the author has to provide more credible evidence  showing that the fact new technologies use less electricity is convincing.Moreover,the author also has to prove that new technologies are also more energy-saving when the proportion of copper in ore is low.To better assess the argument,we need more information about the new technologies,including the costs,whether causing enviromental problems and so forth.

LZ的问题是多方面的，什么是错误要批，什么不要批要明白，建议去看下斑竹的分析和其他同主题的习作．多看看范文．偶的文，来拍．https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=494096&extra=page%3D1