argument71 同主题写作 (FLY AW作文组)-337字

flycc28UID: 2164453

Syllabus:
.
1.新技术不一定能省电,当矿石中铜的含量相等时不能判断新技术还是旧技术的用电量.
2.首先,即使在同含量相同的情况下,新技术能否被广泛应用也不确定.缺少相关材料,如果技术成本高,不能被广泛应用,推广困难,那么整个行业的用电也不会下降.其次新技术是否使用也不清楚,新技术在铜的含量高的矿石提炼中表现良好,但是如果现在铜的普遍含量比较低了?就仍然不得不用旧方法.如果铜的总量增加,即便采用新技术,电能的消耗也会增加.
3.结论：论者没有仔细了解新技术的应用情况，对于该行业的生产也不熟悉，盲目乐观估计。

In this arguments, the arguer predicts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly on the observation that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity that the older method to process the same amount of raw ore. At first glance, it seems reasonable, on meticulous reflection, however, some intolerant fallacies make the argument incredible.

To begin with, the arguer presumes that the new technology will use up less electric energy undoubtedly when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. To support his presumption, the arguer provides the fact that electricity is indeed saved when using nascent process, with low copper containment in the ore, which is unconvincing. On one hand, we should make sure of the equivalent amount of copper before comparison. If the proportion of copper in ore is equivalent, we cannot make out whether the new or the old technology is less used. On the other hand, the amount of electricity will be affected by the total amount of ore used. The argument is in lack of relevant providences.

Even if granted that the new technology will lead saving, we can not ensure that this technology will be applied extensively. It is fairy possible that the high cost of the technology will limit its application. Moreover, the popularization will be difficult in some degree, if only several factories adopt this way, which will not be representative to indicate the decline of electricity of the whole industry. Furthermore, knowing the new technology can play well when the proportion is high, however, if the universal proportion of copper provided today is low, I am afraid that we have to go back to the old way. Besides, it is also likely that the total amount of electricity will rise, after adopt new technology, if the total amount of copper goes up.

To sum up, the arguer is blind to make his conclusion without acquainting how will be the new technology applied and the condition of this industry.

apiyo_07UID: 2191343

In this arguments（去掉s）, the arguer predicts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly on the observation that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity that(than) the older method to process the same amount of raw ore. At first glance, it seems reasonable, on meticulous reflection（感觉有点大词小用了，而且meticulous是不是有点贬义？）, however, some intolerant（intolerant较多指人的性格，这里用intolerable会比较好一点） fallacies make the argument incredible(应该是incredulous吧).

To begin with, the arguer presumes that the new technology will use up（up不需要） less electric energy undoubtedly when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. To support his presumption, the arguer provides the fact that electricity is indeed saved when using nascent process, with low copper containment in the ore, which is unconvincing（这句话好像看不大懂）. On one hand, we should make sure of the equivalent amount of copper before comparison. If the proportion of copper in ore is equivalent, we cannot make out whether the new or the old technology is less used（这里的表达貌似有问题啊）. On the other hand, the amount of electricity will be affected by the total amount of ore used. The argument is in lack of relevant providences.（感觉没有把你中文提纲中的东西说清楚，而且用词和句式都有些问题）

Even if granted that the new technology will lead saving（表述有问题）, we can not ensure that this technology will be applied extensively. It is fairy possible that the high cost of the technology will limit its application. Moreover, the popularization will be difficult in some degree,（应该用句号） if only several factories adopt this way, which will not be representative to indicate the decline of electricity of the whole industry（建议从句用it will not be representative enough to...）. Furthermore, knowing the new technology can play well when the proportion is high, however, if the universal proportion of copper provided today is low, I am afraid that we have to go back to the old way（这个说法太绝对了吧）. Besides, it is also likely that the total amount of electricity will rise, after adopt new technology, if the total amount of copper goes up. （这个逻辑好像也不大通顺）

To sum up, the arguer is blind to make his conclusion without acquainting how will be the new technology applied and the condition of this industry.（听新东方老师讲课时说，反驳别人论点是要留有余地，用blind这个词好像太绝对了）

总的印象，语法问题需要注意，一些没有把握的大词最好少用；另外，逻辑推理判断好像不是很通顺，或许是英文没有很好地表达你想要说的话，anyway，继续加油！

欢迎回拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

flycc28UID: 2164453

果然错误一大把...自己现在看了都汗...

exp03UID: 2158827

To support his presumption, the arguer provides the fact that electricity is indeed saved when using nascent process, with low copper containment in the ore, which is unconvincing.
To support his presumption后面有provides that，所以没有意义，完全可以不要
when using nascent process病句
with low copper containment in the ore  copper和containment两个名词怎么放一起了containing了
which is unconvincing. which指代不明，隔你的process太远

flycc28UID: 2164453

In this argument, the arguer predicts that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly on the observation that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore. At first glance, it seems reasonable, after careful scrutiny, however, we find some intolerable fallacies make the argument incredulous.

To begin with, the arguer presumes that the new technology will save electric energy undoubtedly to process the same amount of ore, especially when the proportion of copper is high. However, I think the evidence provided is too vague to make his conclusion. On one hand, the merely fact that new technology can save electricity when process the same amount of ore is insufficient to conclude that new technology will save electricity. For as mentioned above, the proportion of copper in ore varies considerably, even if copper-extracting using new way use up to 40 percent less than  before, while the output of copper reduces to a half, the result may be  contrary, the new technology uses more energy. On the other hand, we should evaluate which is more economical only when the output of copper is equivalent and the proportion of copper in ore as well as the total amount of ore used. Unfortunately, the argument is in lack of relevant providences. This ideal condition to evaluate is too difficult to reach.

Even if granted that the new technology will lead to the saving, we can not ensure that this technology will be applied extensively. It is fairy possible that the high cost of the technology will limit its application. Moreover, the popularization of the new technology will be difficult in some degree, if only several factories adopt this way, it is not representative enough of indicate that the decline of the electricity of the whole industry. Furthermore, knowing the new technology can play well when the proportion is high. However, if the universal proportion of copper provided today is low, I am afraid that we have to go back to the old way. Besides, it is also likely that the total amount of electricity will rise, after adopt new technology, if the total amount of copper goes up.

To sum up, the arguer is cursory to make his conclusion without acquainting how will be the new technology applied and the condition of this industry.

感谢修改
发现第二段自己逻辑出现了错误 当然还有语法...
继续完善 加油...