argument71 0610G同主题第二期

apiyo_07UID: 2191343

Arg. 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.

(478 words)超时2-3分钟

提纲：1.不同地区对新技术接受的快慢影响新技术的普及，或许未能带来电力减少的迅速改变。
         2.40%是上限，还要视copper的含量而定，也就是含量低的原矿未能达到预期中的节省电力。
         3.即使技术的effectiveness被证实，带来的后果更可能是开采的扩大而不是电力的相应减少。


The arguer, depending on the improved copper-extracting technologies that can reduce the use of electricity at 40 percent at the most, jumps to the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. This optimistic prediction of energy saving is, however, a bit too early, especially when taking a closer look at the limited data we have from the aforementioned argument.

The arguer's contention is fallacious in that he or she fails to take into consideration of the regional differences in adopting new technologies. As we have learned from the information given above, the traditional electricity-driven extraction has long been the only way to extract pure copper from ore. Compared with the time-honored conventional technology of extraction, the newly introduced one might not gain momentum quickly. It will take time and experience for the new extraction process to be accepted and spread. Therefore, chances are that copper-extraction industry in many places would rather retain the surer way of extraction until there are enough good feedbacks.

Besides regional differences in acceptance of the new technology, the only concrete number reported in the argument should also be studied in detail. When emphasizing the 40 percent  electricity that can be reduced in using the new process, the arguer seems to distract the readers from the fact that the 40 percent mentioned is the topmost number of percentage of electricity that can be possibly saved, and with an important preference over an ore with high proportion of copper! This is to say, if the copper proportion is low in the target ore, the percentage of energy saved would drop accordingly, drawing somewhat farther away from the ideal 40 percent. The less the proportion of copper, the more electricity would be consumed. And to what extent the consumption of electricity would finally equal to or exceed the old method is untold and in want of further analysis.

But one might argue that what if the technology has been proved to be an effective one. I should say even if that be the case, electricity consumed in the copper-extracting industry will only decline, if any, at a much smaller proportion, not to say significantly. Driven by the human nature of greediness, energy-saving technology usually means a still larger scale of extraction. That is, contrary to the ideal decrease in electricity use, with the advancement of technology, the industry would only speed up its process of extraction to get more copper, thus in turn consuming more electricity.

In sum, without taking into consideration of the different degree of acceptance of new technology and its effectiveness, one could not arrive at an early conclusion that the new technology would be an energy saving one to the industry. Also, the possible consequences that would be brought about by the advent of the new process, like enlargement of production, should be counted seriously.

flycc28UID: 2164453

The arguer, depending on the improved copper-extracting technologies that can reduce the use of electricity at reduce at?40 percent at the most, jumps to the conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. This optimistic prediction of energy saving is, however, a bit too early, especially when taking a closer look at the limited data we have from the aforementioned argument.

The arguer's contention is fallacious in that he or she fails to take into consideration of the regional differences in adopting new technologies. As we have learned from the information given above, the traditional electricity-driven extraction has long been the only way to extract pure copper from ore. Compared with the time-honored conventional technology of extraction, the newly introduced one might not gain momentum quickly. It will take time and experience 用energy or vigor更好吧?for the new extraction process to be accepted and spread. Therefore, chances are that copper-extraction industry in many places would rather retain the surer way of extraction until there are enough good feedbacks.


Besides regional differences in acceptance of the new technology, the only concrete number reported in the argument should also be studied in detail. When emphasizing the 40 percent  electricity that can be reduced in using the new process, the arguer seems to distract the readers from the fact that the 40 percent mentioned is the topmost number of percentage of electricity that can be possibly saved, and with an important preference over an ore with high proportion of copper! This is to say, if the copper proportion is low in the target ore, the percentage of energy saved would drop accordingly, drawing somewhat farther away from the ideal 40 percent. The less the proportion of copper, the more electricity would be consumed. And to what extent the consumption of electricity would finally equal to or exceed the old method is untold and in want of further analysis.40percent个人觉得不应该是辩驳的重点吧

But one might argue that what if the technology has been proved to be an effective one. I should say even if that be the case, electricity consumed in the copper-extracting industry will only decline, if any, at a much smaller proportion, not to say significantly. Driven by the human nature of greediness, energy-saving technology usually means a still larger scale of extraction. That is, contrary to the ideal decrease in electricity use, with the advancement of technology, the industry would only speed up its process of extraction to get more copper, thus in turn consuming more electricity.

In sum, without taking into consideration of the different degree of acceptance of new technology and its effectiveness, one could not arrive at an early conclusion that the new technology would be an energy saving one to the industry. Also, the possible consequences that would be brought about by the advent of the new process, like enlargement of production, should be counted seriously.
总体上是篇好文 用词构句明显已经区域成熟 只是40percent那段个人不确定,或者可以说的简洁一点 这样时间也够了:)

apiyo_07UID: 2191343

谢谢你的修改和意见^__^

和你所说的相反，我觉得40%恰恰是个分析反驳的重点，因为对方正是利用这个重要的数据来说明新技术可以大大地节省能源的优势；而且，我感觉自己的分析还不够全面，如果能加上斑竹对原矿和copper含量数量的分析就更好了，感觉那句话玄机重重呢：）
不过，那样就更加会超时了= =|||

继续努力ing~~~