argument71 [practise]实在写不出三个错误

quickbreezeUID: 195262

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.
这篇比较明显的错误我就写出来两个，所以特别短...
Time: 32:05  words:422

In this argument, the arguer reaches a conclusion that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. To support his views, the arguer presents some information and comparison about two extraction methods, which make this argument seemingly reasonable. However, this argument is actually ungrounded and misleading due to several defects discussed below.

First, the arguer makes comparison between the amounts of electricity by two different technologies, implying that the new technologies are more advanced than the old ones. However, although the arguer himself has admitted that that proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably, he fails to put the two at the same level. In this way the number of 40 -- with old method applied to poor ores while new method to rich ones -- hardly tells anything to help give judgments. It is as likely that the old method is able to do the same as, if not better than, the new one when extracting copper from rich mines. Nonetheless the argument only presents inadequate data which more bewilder me. Since the comparison is based on vague and unfair premises, the results lend little credit to the argument.

Furthermore, even if the new technologies are indeed superior to the old ones when the topic of electricity is concerned, it is too hasty and presumptuous for the arguer to make his conclusion that the new method will be widely accepted and applied. It is common sense that there are many other elements which influence the gross evaluation of a kind of technologies. Besides the consumption of electricity, the cost of materials, equipments, and transportation also weigh a lot to the decision makes. Perhaps the new method will drainage large amount of water which pollutes our environment severely; and the new method has no way to pass the permission of regional government. Also it is possible that a crucial machine needs to be imported and the cost of it far exceeds the endurance of budgets. Yet in this argument no information is presented to discuss these ingredients. Without considering all these aspects, the arguer cannot get correct impression except a partial one. Such negligence greatly weakens the authenticity of this argument.

In sum, this argument is well-presented but weak indeed and arguer reaches an invalid conclusion. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer should study and compare the two technologies carefully and comprehensively, with every relevant respect taken into consideration. Before adequate evidence and illustration is provided, the arguer cannot persuade me to support his idea.