argument71 同主题写作第二期 我的第一篇

cpuliuwenUID: 2203373

Argument71
提纲
1.        处理相同的矿石省电并不一定保证得到相同的纯铜也能省电
2.        即使省电,也不能确保新技术能得到很好的推广
3.        即使上述两点都成立,也不能保证炼铜工业的用电量下降,还应该考虑其他因素的影响


In this argument, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry is expected to decline significantly by using the New copper-extracting technologies. To support the conclusion, the arguer point that New copper-extrcting 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. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the fact that up to 40 percent electricity can be saved to process the same amount of raw ore when carrying out the new technologies dose not ensure that the same amount of copper can be obtained since the proportion of the copper in the ore is not sure. As the arguer has said, the fraction of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Perhaps, the total yeild of the pure copper is also much less than before if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. For example, suppose that with the old method,by dealing with 100 tons of ore, 3 tons of pure copper is extracted, whereas with the mew method, maybe only 0.5 tons of pure copper can be obtained out of more than 140 tons of ores. In this case, even though the same  electricity is consumed, we can get more pure copper by the old method  only because the difference percentage of the pure copper in the ore. Besides, the 40 percent electricity saving is much related to the high proportion of copper in the ore, who can guarantee the efficiency would be the same when the copper proportion in the ore is very low. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the new technologies are less electricity-consuming.

Futhermore, even if New copper-extracting technologies can save electricity, of course , an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that these technologies can be put into practice in a large scale in the industry. Many factors affecting the prevailing of the technologies. It is entirely possible that the equipment of this kind of technology is so expensive that only a small portion of the copper-extracting factories can afford it, or the technologies are too complicated for common people to understand. As a result, most factoris would refuse to introdeuce these new technologies even though less electricity is needed.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider and rules out other factors that might affect the amount of electricity used in the copper-extraction industry. Even if the arguer's above two assumptions are acceptable, we can not simply concludes that electricity consumption of the industry is sure to decline dramatically. It is likely that the amount of the production in the industry is arising at the same time. In this case, maybe the consumption of electricity is much higher than ever before.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the assumptions in the argument do not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To make the argument more convincing, the aruger would have to provide more specific evidence concerning the new technologies’ high performance in saving electricity. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the feasibility of the technologies and the factors affecting the amount of electricity used by the copper-extration industry.

[ 本帖最后由 cpuliuwen 于 2006-7-16 21:01 编辑 ]

cpuliuwenUID: 2203373

第一次写不知道路子对不对,哪位高人指点一下,焦急等待中!

linfan68UID: 2185216

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry is expected to decline significantly by using the New copper-extracting technologies. To support the conclusion, the arguer point that New copper-extrcting 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. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the fact that up to 40 percent electricity can be saved to process the same amount of raw ore when carrying out the new technologies dosedoes not ensure that the same amount of copper can be obtained since the proportion of the copper in the ore is not sure. As the arguer has said, the fraction of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Perhaps, the total yeild yield of the pure copper is also much less than before if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. For example, suppose that with the old method, by dealing with 100 tons of ore, 3 tons of pure copper is extracted, whereas with the mew method, maybe only 0.5 tons of pure copper can be obtained out of more than 140 tons of ores. In this case, even though the same electricity is consumed, we can get more pure copper by the old method only because the difference percentage of the pure copper in the ore. Besides, the 40 percent electricity saving is much related to the high proportion of copper in the ore, whono one can guarantee the efficiency would be the same when the copper proportion in the ore is very low. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the new technologies are less electricity-consuming感觉这里最好限定条件，比如同样多的产量.

FuthermoreFurthermore, even if New copper-extracting technologies can save electricityover all, of course , an unwarranted assumption这里是不是和even if重复了……我也不确定, it does not follow that these technologies can be put into practice in a large scale in the industry. Many factors affectingaffect the prevailing of the technologies. It is entirely possible that the equipment of this kind of technology is so expensive that only a small portion of the copper-extracting factories can afford it, or the technologies are too complicated for common people to understand用command people好像不太合适，current worker 是不是好一些，再加入什么需要高昂的培训费用. As a result, most factoris factoryswould refuse to introdeuceintroduce these new technologies even though less electricity is needed.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider and rules out other factors that might affect the amount of electricity used in the copper-extraction industry. Even if the arguer's above two assumptions are acceptable, we can not simply concludes that electricity consumption of the industry is sure to decline dramatically. It is likely that the amount of the production in the industry is arising at the same time. In this case, maybe the consumption of electricity is much higher than ever before.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the assumptions in the argument do not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To make the argument more convincing, the arugerarguer would have to provide more specific evidence concerning the new technologies’ high performance in saving electricity. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the feasibility of the technologies and the factors affecting the amount of electricity used by the copper-extration extractionindustry.


以后记得先在word里面贴一下改正拼写错误！
感觉字数太多了，可能需要精简一些以节省时间
对于语言和语法方面不是我的长项……忍吧……
第二段中间的那个例子（100吨和140吨）有一些问题，如果矿石含铜量小的话，即使用老方法（或是好的多的方法）也会有很低的产量。
进一步，第二段的反驳的思路不太清楚，我理解你的意思是说他们的比较（40%less）不是在同样含量的前提下作出的，但这个问题可能只是作者没有表达清楚，而不是致命的漏洞。
如果能编几个“其他因素”就比较饱满了。