argument71

lastgoalUID: 2229628

The arguer claims that by the new copper-extracting technologies, the amount of electricity used to extract the pure copper from ore will decline significantly. To justify his conclusion, the arguer point out that the new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40pecent less electricity than the older method, which is the only way to extract the copper. The argument suffers from sever logical fallacies which render the conclusion unconvincing.
        To begin with the argument is based on the assumption that the new copper-extracting technologies can use less electricity than the old one. However, the arguer doesn’t provide reasonable evidences to convince me that it is the case. Though the new copper-extracting method can use up 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, what about the proportion of copper in the raw ore? Considering the given information by the argument that the proportion of copper in the ore vary considerably. It is quite possible that the proportion of  raw ores which are used to compare  the electricity consumed by the two methods would be quite different. For example, the proportion of copper in raw ore used in the old method would be 9 times more than the new one(90% vs 10% ). Given this circumstance, though the electricity consumed by the new one would be 40% less, the total electricity consumed to produce the same amount of pure copper would not be less than the old one. In conclusion, without information of the proportion of pure copper in the raw ores when comparing the electricity used by the two methods, I can not accept the arguer's conclusion that the new method would consume less electricity than the old way.
       Also, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used in copper-extraction industry will decline significantly is open to doubt. Admittedly that the new method would use less electricity than the old one, the arguer can not simply generate that the copper-extraction industry would decrease the amount of electricity used. Sever factors would refute the conclusion. Firstly, the arguer overlooks the cost of the new method. Perhaps the new machines would be too expensive that even if it can use less electricity, the total cost to produce the same amount of pure copper would be equal or even much more than the old one. Therefore, whether the copper-extracting industry would apply the new method is a doubt. Under this situation, I cannot reasonably accept the arguer's conclusion that the electricity will decline. Secondly, admittedly that the copper-extracting industry will apply the new method, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used will decline significant is still untenable. The amount of electricity used is based on two respects, the electricity used to produce per ton of pure copper, and the total amount of the pure copper produced in the industry. Though the first respects decrease, the arguer overlooks the changes of the second respect. It is possible the total amount of the pure copper produced in the industry would increase with the application of new method. Without the information about the total pure copper produced after the application of the new method, and without its comparison with the amount of pure copper produced before the arguer cannot simply conclude that the amount of electricity used in copper-extraction industry will decline  significantly .
        In conclusion, the argument is not well-supported. To bolster it ,the arguer must show me that to produce the same amount of pure copper, the new method can use less electricity than the old one. To make me better evaluate the conclusion, the arguer should inform me that the cost of the new method is acceptable and it would be applied in the industry and also I would like to know the total amount of pure copper produced after the implement of the new method.

[ 本帖最后由 kito9695 于 2006-7-16 19:58 编辑 ]

智恩UID: 2160717

The arguer claims that by the new copper-extracting technologies, the amount of electricity used to extract the pure copper from ore will decline significantly. To justify his conclusion, the arguer point 【points】out that the new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40pecent less electricity than the older method, which is the only way to extract the copper. The argument suffers from sever logical fallacies which render the conclusion unconvincing.
        To begin with the argument is based on the assumption that the new copper-extracting technologies can use less electricity than the old one. However, the arguer doesn’t provide reasonable evidences【这是一个不可数名词】 to convince me【最好用us，显得要客观一点】 that it is the case. Though the new copper-extracting method can use up 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, what about the proportion of copper in the raw ore? Considering the given information by the argument that the proportion of copper in the ore vary considerably. It is quite possible that the proportion of  raw ores which are used to compare  the electricity consumed by the two methods would be quite different. For example, the proportion of copper in raw ore used in the old method would be 9 times more than the new one(90% vs 10% ). Given this circumstance, though the electricity consumed by the new one would be 40% less, the total electricity consumed to produce the same amount of pure copper would not be less than the old one. In conclusion, without information of the proportion of pure copper in the raw ores when comparing the electricity used by the two methods, I can not accept the arguer's conclusion that the new method would consume less electricity than the old way.
       Also, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used in copper-extraction industry will decline significantly is open to doubt. Admittedly that the new method would use less electricity than the old one, the arguer can not simply generate that the copper-extraction industry would decrease the amount of electricity used. Sever factors would refute the conclusion. Firstly, the arguer overlooks the cost of the new method. Perhaps the new machines would be too【so...that】 expensive that even if it can use less electricity, the total cost to produce the same amount of pure copper would be equal 【to】or even much more than the old one. Therefore, whether the copper-extracting industry would apply the new method is a doubt. Under this situation, I cannot reasonably accept the arguer's conclusion that the electricity will decline. Secondly, admittedly that the copper-extracting industry will apply the new method, the conclusion that the amount of electricity used will decline significant is still untenable. The amount of electricity used is based on two respects, the electricity used to produce per ton of pure copper, and the total amount of the pure copper produced in the industry. Though the first respects decrease, the arguer overlooks the changes of the second respect. It is possible the total amount of the pure copper produced in the industry would increase with the application of new method. Without the information about the total pure copper produced after the application of the new method, and without its comparison with the amount of pure copper produced before the arguer cannot simply conclude that the amount of electricity used in copper-extraction industry will decline  significantly .
        In conclusion, the argument is not well-supported. To bolster it ,the arguer must show me that to produce the same amount of pure copper, the new method can use less electricity than the old one. To make me better evaluate the conclusion, the arguer should inform me that the cost of the new method is acceptable and it would be applied in the industry and also I would like to know the total amount of pure copper produced after the implement of the new method.

总的来说写的不错，注意一下一些语法
还有最好是有提纲，这样看起来要轻松些
argu能写这么多字是绝对够了的，估计到最后限时写，是写不到这么多的
还有就是最好找个一起考的互相改，我已经考过了，一些逻辑上的东西记得不是很清楚了，没怎么给你改结构，还见谅，主要是有点搞忘了，如果没人给你改，你就先给别人改，然后留下链接，就有人帮你看了
anyway，A ZA A ZA Fighting～～～

[ 本帖最后由 智恩 于 2006-7-17 12:41 编辑 ]

kito9695UID: 209685

竟然是智恩帮你改的~

8过发帖格式错了~~~
我帮你改了，下次不要再发错喽~

再错不让智恩帮你改喽;P

kito9695UID: 209685

还有下次发的时候，把提纲列出来方便大家帮你看

A ZA！！