argument71 [0710G ＋U Aug小组] gungun 求拍！谢谢

SatanicUID: 2362211

TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - 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: 378          TIME: 00:29:09          DATE: 2007-8-25 18:15:39
In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that the electricity used by copper-extraction industry will decline significantly. This conclusion is base on the assumption that there is only one way to extract copper and less electricity can be used base on a new technology. While this argument has some merits, several conspicuous flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.
In the first place, the saying by the author, that there is only one way in the copper extracting technology, without any certification seems to be unwarranted. The author drives us into a no-other-choice dilemma. Perhaps there are several ways of extracting pure copper author does not mentioned, only because author does not know them. Perhaps other methods exist which do not need electricity such as high tempreturetemperature to force the ore to resolve, high pressure to crash the hard ore into small peaces which are easy to extract. Without further investigation and arbitrarilyarbitrarily believe that there is only one way in the industry is somewhat unconvincing.
Even assuming that there is only one way in the extracting industry, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that 40 percent less electricity indicate the advance of technology. The author only mention that the comparison are based on the same amount of raw ore but neglect the element of amount of copper it contains. Perhaps the copper contained in the ore in the experiment is high and this surely leads less electricity. And the author does not state any authorized data in this experiment or research. Without ruling out the detail of the experiment and whether it is acknolegedacknowledged by authority, the result can raise suspicion on the reader.
Even admittingadmitting that the research is somewhat acceptable, the author makes a oversimplified conclusion. Whether the apperatus这个设备单词怎么找不到？ are need to change to suit to the new technology? If the apperatus is old and it has lower productivity and surely cost lots of electricity. The author has to consider other aspects of electricity saving conclusion.
In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer must take more investigation on other existing ways in copper-extracting, show more details about the research to make it more convincing and considering other aspect in this electricity saving plan.

icefirekkUID: 2293126

TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occursin nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore, and theproportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Until fairlyrecently, the only way to extract pure copper from ore was by using aprocess that requires large amounts of electric energy, especially ifthe proportion of copper in the ore is low. New copper-extractingtechnologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the oldermethod to process the same amount of raw ore, especially when theproportion of copper in the ore is high. Therefore, we can expect theamount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to declinesignificantly.

In this argument, the arguer attemptsto convince us that the electricity used by copper-extraction industrywill decline significantly. This conclusion is base on the assumptionthat there is only one way to extract copper and less electricity canbe used base on a new technology. While this argument has some merits,several conspicuous flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning. this conclusion一句可做以下段落的总体概括，如果能再加句：作者忽略了新技术在某些方面的缺点而草率下结论。就更好了
In the first place, the saying by theauthor, that there is only one way in the copper extracting technology,without any certification seems to be unwarranted. only你就别批了，新技术也要电啊。只不过作者是要采用更省电的新技术来减少用电。The author drives usinto a no-other-choice dilemma. Perhaps there are severalways of extracting pure copper author does not mentioned, only becauseauthor does not know them. Perhaps other methods exist which do notneed electricity such as high tempreturetemperature to force the ore to resolve, high pressure to crash the hard ore into small peaces pieces which are easy to extract. Without further investigation and arbitrarilyarbitrarily believe that there is only one way in the industry is somewhat unconvincing.别太发散了，电解在现代炼铜的过程是不可少的，不用电是永远不可能的，呵呵。当然古代社会提取铜不用电，用湿法炼铜，但这不是现代处理大量铜矿的方式。用电的多少取决与前期对铜矿的处理方式。其实这篇文章可写的东西很多啊
Even assuming that there is only oneway in the extracting industry, the arguer makes a hasty generalizationthat 40 percent less electricity indicate the advance of technology.The author only mention that the comparison are based on the sameamount of raw ore but neglect the element of amount of copper itcontains. Perhaps the copper contained in the ore in the experiment ishigh and this surely leads less electricity这是文中已明确说了的（especially when theproportion of copper in the ore is high），不是 perhaps.你需要怀疑的是当铜含量低时新技术是否同样更省电？这是文中没说明的，铜矿石中的铜不可能永远含量高。如果1、铜矿石中含有其他valuable金属（Copper occursin nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore），旧方法是否可以在炼铜的同时得到这些额外的金属呢？2、新技术在低铜含量下更费电 3、新技术污染更大，那么还是旧技术比较优越。 And the author does notstate any authorized data in this experiment or research. Withoutruling out the detail of the experiment and whether it is acknolegedacknowledged by authority, the result can raise suspicion on the reader.



Even admittingadmitting that the research is somewhat acceptable, the author makes a oversimplified conclusion. Whether the apperatus这个设备单词怎么找不到？apparatusare need to change to suit to the new technology? If the apperatus isold and it has lower productivity and surely cost lots of electricity正确.The author has to consider other aspects of electricity savingconclusion.补充：如果新方法优越，工厂就会扩大产量，处理更多矿石，也许用电量仍然会上升。
In summary, this argument is notpersuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguermust take more investigation on other existing ways incopper-extracting, show more details about the research to make it moreconvincing and considering other aspect in this electricity saving plan.
不好意思啊，批的有点多。

思路清晰，但没写仔细。
1、新方法真的更省电吗？应该比的是得到相同的铜需要用的电，处理含量高的铜矿省电不能说明什么。
2、如果更省电，有不好的方面吗，比如环保等
3、采用新方法后，一定减少总用电量吗？如果扩大生产规模呢？
我建了个群，昨天已经开课了，暂时我讲课，学生11人。杭州的GRE考试群30265183，如果你考完作文后，有兴趣热烈欢迎加入学习攻关小组。