argument71

魏玛竹林UID: 2201594

The argument is not cogent because it compares the amount of electric energy used by two kinds of technologies without considering the quality of the ore used in those two ways. The arguer also presumptuously generalizes future of the whole industry of copper-extracting just according to the above comparison.

To begin with, the high consumption of old tech and a less usage of the new one are not applied on ore of the same proportion of copper, which make the result of the comparison meaningless. It is wildly accepted that the same amount of raw ore does not necessarily follows the same amount of copper, which actually matters. Maybe the new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, but the amount of copper extracted by the new tech is 50 percent less than that of the old one. If it is the case, the old tech in fact does a better job in saving the electric energy than the new one.

Furthermore, what does “especially” mean in this argument? Does it mean when the copper in the ore is poor, the old way requires a large amount of energy, but when the ore is rich for copper, the consumption of old way is such a small number that 40 percent of it is negligible which actually contribute little to the expected “significant decline”? Or does it mean the old tech consumes much more electric energy, no matter what? The problem is the key term in this argument is too vague to be meaningful. Without ruling out the other factors which may affect the result of the comparison, the arguer cannot get to his conclusion.     

Although the new tech do save energy effectively, no matter what, the expectation of its generalization is still ridiculous. For the widely application of any new tech is a really complex procession. And the saving energy is just one aspect of the tech’s quality. What if it rise other cost or even it is somewhat harm to operators’ health?  Then it is obviously not a wise idea to put it into practice.

In a word, without rule out the factor that may affect the result of the comparison, we could not judge whether the new tech functions better than the old one in saving electric energy and only after examine every aspect of a method the introduction of a new tech could be expected.

bssUID: 2163624

argument71

The argument is not cogent because it compares the amount of electric energy used by two kinds of technologies without considering the quality of the ore used in those two ways. The arguer also presumptuously generalizes future of the whole industry of copper-extracting just according to the above comparison.（什么意思呢？有点走题吧？）

To begin with, the high consumption of old tech and a less usage of the new one are not applied on ore of the same proportion of copper, which make the result of the comparison meaningless. It is wildly accepted that the same amount of raw ore does not necessarily follows the same amount of copper, which actually matters. Maybe the new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, but the amount of copper extracted by the new tech is 50 percent less than that of the old one. If it is the case, the old tech in fact does a better job in saving the electric energy than the new one.

Furthermore, what does “especially” mean in this argument? Does it mean when the copper in the ore is poor, the old way requires a large amount of energy, but when the ore is rich for copper, the consumption of old way is such a small number that 40 percent of it is negligible which actually contribute little to the expected “significant decline”? Or does it mean the old tech consumes much more electric energy, no matter what? The problem is the key term in this argument is too vague to be meaningful. Without ruling out the other factors which may affect the result of the comparison, the arguer cannot get to his conclusion.     

Although the new tech do save energy effectively, no matter what, the expectation of its generalization is still ridiculous. For the widely application of any new tech is a really complex procession. And the saving energy is just one aspect of the tech’s quality. What if it rise other cost or even it is somewhat harm to operators’ health?  Then it is obviously not a wise idea to put it into practice.

In a word, without rule out the factor that may affect the result of the comparison, we could not judge whether the new tech functions better than the old one in saving electric energy and only after examine every aspect of a method the introduction of a new tech could be expected.

总体来讲写得并不很好，属于无病呻吟，总体来讲只找到了一处逻辑错误，另外两个并不是主要的，感觉有点不太好。建议看一下关于74的分析，看一下另外的那两个主要错误是什么？语言还是不错的。

魏玛竹林UID: 2201594

恩 谢谢 我去看看先