arument71 同主题第二期 （超时……超值？）

cellophane05UID: 2135343

这么准备充分的题目又超时了，过几天就要考了，实在是还没找到感觉呢。
大家狠狠拍拍.

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: 371          TIME: 0:34:00          DATE: 2006-7-14

Author contends that a new copper-extracting technology can save electricity to acquire copper. It seems logical at first sight, however careful scrutiny reveals that the argument is fraught with many problems, which render it unconvincing.

The threshold problem involved in the argument is that the efficiency of new technology. Author says that new technology can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore. But it does not mention whether the achievement of the copper from the same raw ore is same. If the copper obtained by way of new technologies is much smaller than the previous method, the electricity saving has no meaning at all. Besides, the 40 percent saving is related to the high proportion of copper in the ore, then how about the low proportion? Author does not provide convincing evidence to substantiate the saving of new technologies.

Even if new technologies are efficient and electricity saving, another problem is whether new technologies are practical in the industry. Common sense tells us that a myriad of new technologies test well in the laboratory, but they can not be applied widely due to the high cost and complicated procedures. If so, new technologies will end up on the small scale application, and will not generate tremendous effect to the traditional method. In addition, author neglect the potential gain of other valuable metal from ore. In fact, many ore are multi-function, which means the evaluation of industry process is not limited to copper. If this scenario is true, author does not give us substantiated evidence to prove new technologies will benefit other valuable metals.

Granted new technologies are practical and efficient, there is other problem related to prospect proposed in the argument. Perhaps the electricity for unit product of copper decreases, but the total electricity used to extract copper increases drastically. That is because the total amount of the copper increases in the greater demand. Therefore, it is hasty to expect the amount of electricity decline significantly.

In conclusion, author fails to take many factors, such as efficiency, cost, into consideration to draw the conclusion. In order to reach a reasonable prospect, author should consider it more carefully and thoroughly.

exp03UID: 2158827

whether the achievement of the copper from the same raw ore is same.这句话等于什么都没说，最后那个same实在太伤感情，is后面本来可以发表一篇高谈阔论不同在何处，结果……那这句还不如直接说 the achievement of the copper from the same raw ore is different来得痛快。这个same一出，第二段的前面三排宣告破产，全部在重复题目。

If the copper obtained by way of new technologies is much smaller than the previous method, the electricity saving has no meaning at all. smaller在这里用得不对吧，less了。

Besides, the 40 percent saving is related to the high proportion of copper in the ore, then how about the low proportion?看到很多人提出这个观点了，个人觉得这不是一个很明确的攻击点，如果老老实实翻译作者的那句话，觉得至少还是过得去，那么既然有那么多攻击点等待开发何必非要提这点呢，况且像作者在文中只是这样一笔带过并没去分析它不对在哪里，对argument来说是没有意义的。

Even if new technologies are efficient and electricity saving, another problem is whether new technologies are practical in the industry （or not）.跟我有句话好像一模一样……

文中没说是 test well in the laboratory吧，凭空加内容了可不好

In addition, author neglect the potential gain of other valuable metal from ore. In fact, many ore are multi-function, which means the evaluation of industry process is not limited to copper. If this scenario is true, author does not give us substantiated evidence to prove new technologies will benefit other valuable metals.这点想得不错！我没想到！

there is other problem（problems）也找一个你的单复数问题：）

这个，最后一段说的这个……不能说因为怕用得多，就不去用更简便的新方法吧，呵呵。

有些地方说得不对的还请指正！

cellophane05UID: 2135343

谢谢,我仔细看一下

原帖由 exp03 于 2006-7-15 02:14 发表
whether the achievement of the copper from the same raw ore is same.这句话等于什么都没说，最后那个same实在太伤感情，is后面本来可以发表一篇高谈阔论不同在何处，结果……那这句还不如直接说 the achievem ...

GREkidUID: 2146489

刚开始准备，第一次写argument，超时2分钟，和马上上考场的同学是有差距亚。。。


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: 384          TIME: 上午 12:32:02          DATE: 2006-7-15

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry would decline significantly. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that new copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount. In addition, the arguer reasons that using the electricity is the only way to extract pure copper from ore. However, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the mere fact that new tech can save 40 percent electricity to extract the same amount of the raw ore leads no strong support to the conclusion that less electricity would be used totally. It is possible that the amount of electricity used declines for extracting the same amount of copper from raw ore. It is equally possible that more copper is required in some period and thus more electricity would be consumed to extract the extra copper from raw ore. Unless the arguer could provide the evidence that the amount of copper required extracting remains the same, we cannot accept the conclusion that electricity used would decline significantly.

Besides, the arguer fails to take into account the relationship between the electricity used and the proportion of copper in the ore. The arguer shows the fact that large amount of electric energy must be used to extract copper from those ore in which the proportion of copper is low. While arguer also tells us that great amount of electricity could be saved to extract copper from raw ore in which the proportion of copper is low. We can safely concludes that if the proportion is low, still large amount of electricity should be consumed, not concerning about new tech or old. Unless the arguer provides the information about the copper proportion in the ore used, the decision whether electricity energy consumed would increase or decline is unfounded.

In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis doesn't lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence about how much amount of copper is required in some period. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the kind of raw ore and the proportion of copper in the ore.