arg71-同主题 飞行部落小组 第一次作文拉！！ 尽管拍！

allengtrUID: 2155467

Arg71. 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.
Time： 1hour20min   Words：496
提纲：
1. 新旧方法对比时，没有说明铜矿石的含量及铜的产量。
2. 新方法省电的前提不明确。
3.新方法是否能够运用于实际还值得考虑。

In this argument, the arguer cited that the amount of electricity utilized by the copper-extraction industry will drop dramatically, due to the new copper-extracting technologies. In order to support the assertion, a contrast of the new and old technologies is given. Nevertheless, the evidence the author provided is insufficient to support the conclusion, and the conclusion is a little hasty.

First of all, the author's conclusion depend on the assumption that the new copper-extracting technologies 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. However, on one hand, the contrast is beyond the condition that the two methods process the same amount of raw ore. But how about the proportion of copper in the ore?  How about the amount of the extracted copper on that condition? The author doesn't tell us. Supposed much fewer copper were produced by using the new technology. Even though it saved electricity, it might consume more electricity when extracting the same amount of copper compared with the old technology. Then the total amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction wouldn’t be declined, either.

On the other hand, it is said that the new method saves electricity, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Otherwise, we don't know how much electricity consumed when the proportion of copper in the ore is low. The author only tells us the tradition technology requires large amounts of electric energy when the proportion is low. And when the proportion of copper in the ore is different, the contrast of the two kind of technologies' consumed electric energy is meaningless. On comparing which kind of technology can save electricity, both the amount of copper ore and the proportion of copper in the ore should be the same, moreover, the amount of extracted copper also should be taken into account. After considering all the factors, we can make a creditable conclusion that the new method can save electricity.   

Even if the arguer's assumption comes into existence, the possibility of the new method's employment is still doubtful. As it's known to all there are many things should be considered before a new technology is able to be used in the industry producing, such as the cost and complexity of the technology. If it is not practicable, or it is too costly in most of copper-extraction companies, the technology won't be widely employed by copper-extraction enterprises. So the amount of electricity used by the whole industry won't drop dramatically. It seems that the author is a little hasty to make such conclusion, before demonstrating the possibility of the new method's employment.

To sum up, without ruling out the above possibilities, it is impossible to assess the conclusion based upon it. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take into account the given factors discussed above, so that it would be creditable.

[ 本帖最后由 allengtr 于 2006-7-14 22:29 编辑 ]

缪斯之心UID: 2204338

In this argument, the arguer cited that the amount of electricity utilized by the copper-extraction industry will drop dramatically, due to the new copper-extracting technologies. In order to support the assertion, a contrast of the new and old technologies is given. Nevertheless, the evidence the author provided is insufficient to support the conclusion, and the conclusion is a little hasty.（开头还不错，比较简洁，就是最后两个the conclusion连到了一起，可不可以换个词，把第一个换成assumption也可）
First of all, the author's conclusion depend on the assumption that the new copper-extracting technologies 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. However, on one hand, the contrast is beyond the condition that the two methods process the same amount of raw ore. But how（what）about the proportion of copper in the ore?  How about the amount of the extracted copper on that condition? The author doesn't tell us. Supposed (Perhaps) much (可去掉)  fewer copper were (was) produced by using the new technology. Even though it saved electricity, it might consume more electricity (连用两个，可energy) when extracting the same amount of copper compared with the old technology.（这句话译成中文就是即使它省电，与老办法相比它提取同样数量的铜还可能用电更多 ，似乎有点突兀，最好在逗号前加点前提）Then the total amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction wouldn’t be declined, either.（条理还算清晰，就是感觉攻击的不够深入，有点抽象，不过这段也算是AG里蛮难写的了，继续努力）

On the other hand, it is said that the new method saves electricity, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Otherwise, we don't know how much electricity consumed when the proportion of copper in the ore is low. The author only tells us the tradition technology requires large amounts of electric energy when the proportion is low. And(In fact显得更通顺) when the proportion of copper in the ore is different, the contrast of the two kind(s) of technologies' consumed electric energy is meaningless. On comparing which kind of technology can save electricity, both the amount of copper ore and the proportion of copper in the ore should be the same, moreover, the amount of extracted copper also should be taken into account. After considering all the factors, we can make a creditable conclusion that the new method can save electricity. （论述不错，就是没有可以一针见血的TS，ETS看的快的话就会吃亏哦）  

Even if the arguer's assumption comes into existence, the possibility of the new method's employment is still doubtful. As it's known to all there are many things should be considered before a new technology is able to be used in the industry producing, such as the cost and (the) complexity of the technology. If it is not practicable, or it is too costly in most of copper-extraction companies, the technology won't be widely employed (applied) by copper-extraction enterprises. So the amount of electricity used by the whole industry won't drop dramatically. It seems that the author is a little hasty to make such conclusion, before demonstrating the possibility of the new method's employment.(句子间的逻辑很好，不知道为什么，我们的AG总是感觉很空泛的一扫而过，范文就感觉深刻有力，可能就是范文在大的方面用语比较简洁，把字词很多花在了其他可能性之类的分析上。就显得生动了起来。咱们组要多看精华里的有人评过的范文。)
To sum up, without ruling out the above possibilities, it is impossible to assess the conclusion based upon it. (them) To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take into account the given factors discussed above, so that it would be creditable. (结尾也很简洁，发现了没有，这个结尾简直可以通用，考试时间不够直接一打：)不过有时间还是最好加点具体的和这道题有关的东西，以免雷同)

（虽然还不够非常深刻生动，不过逻辑衔接的很到位，总的说来比我写的好多了，继续努力，在细节上多渲染一下）

[ 本帖最后由 缪斯之心 于 2006-7-15 22:30 编辑 ]

allengtrUID: 2155467

谢谢， 第一篇Argument，确实也没有注意那么多，慢慢改进吧。
一会把 这篇自己再修改写下。。

expire7UID: 2160574

标题格式不对，请修改