Argument71 同主题，越洋农场战队

FrostmournUID: 2179616

TOPIC: ARGUMENT 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.
WORDS: 453          TIME: 0:28:00          DATE: 2006-7-15

1.新技术对于低产矿的效果未知，可能这种场合还是老方法好；
2.新技术要花钱才能采用，铜厂老板是否认为划算，采用新技术；另外采用新技术后可能干活多了，反而更废电

In this argument, the arguer claims that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To support this argument, the arguer points out that new copper-extracting technologies can use much 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. This argument suffers from a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which renders it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

In the first place, the arguer gratuitously assumes that new copper-extracting technologies would always use much less electricity than the older method does. However, we are not informed whether that is always true. The arguer tells us that the consumption of electricity is high when the proportion of copper in the ore is low, however, the new method was tested under the condition that copper proportion is high. Hence, we have good reason to doubt whether the new technologies would work as well when copper proportion is relatively low. It is possible that the new technologies are designed to extract copper from high-proportion ore, and may not work as well when copper proportion is low. In that case, perhaps the older method uses less energy than the new method. So the arguer cannot justifiably claim that the new method preponderate the older method yet.

In the second place, even the new method surely uses less energy than the older method, it does not follow that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly. The threshold question is that whether entrepreneurs would adopt this new method. Common sense tells me that entrepreneurs concern most about profit, thus if the cost of adopting this new method is extremely high, they would think twice before do this. The arguer gives no information about the cost of the adoption of this new method, so even it is good, it may not necessarily be adopted by copper-extracting industry, let alone save energy. Furthermore, even assume that copper-extracting industry would adopt this new method, it does not guarantee that more energy would be saved. It is entirely possible that due to the augmentation of copper productivity, the work efficiency increased, and more copper are extracted from ore, consequently more energy would be used to extract more copper from ore. Either of these scenarios would lead to an increase in electricity consumption.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing because of its several unfounded assumptions. To strengthen this argument, the arguer has to convince us that the new technologies will always use much less energy than the older method--whatever high-proportion or low-proportion copper ore. And he/she must prove that copper-extracting industry would adopt this new method so this method can be put into practice. Finally, the arguer must convince us that there would be not more copper be extracted than before.

感觉这篇文章可以驳斥的地方不多，写不出什么，大家有什么点子？