argument208 G-89-互助社-8。8日同主题写作

fairy115UID: 200324

Based on three seemingly reasonable evidences from the planning department of an electric power company, the author gives out a conclusion that construction of new generating plants should not be necessary in the future. To support the conclusion, the arguer points cited some recent survey indicate that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufactures are now making many energy-efficient home application. In addition, he indicates that new technology makes better home insulation and passive solar heating, which can reduce the energy needed, are available. And the third evidence is from the past experience in the past 20 years that existed electric generating plants have always met their needs. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provided compelling support making the argument sound. The author ignores that the soundness of the survey, the aggregate energy needs may increase while the home appliances are more energy-efficient, and the limitation analogy between the past experience and the future needs. These important concerns must be addressed to prove.

In the first place, the survey cited in the argument here is too vague to be informative. From the survey, we found little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficient sample so as to be representative of the overall homeowners in that area. If the survey is only based on 10 homeowners, even though all of them are eager to conserve energy, it is obvious that the sample is too small to be sufficient. Besides, the author fails to point out whether the survey in conducted on the foundation of random sampling, if all of the informants are all from some energy-conservation organize, their opinion can't represent all the citizens.

Even the survey is soundness and most homeowners are eager to conserve energy, the proof of the decline demand for electricity in that area needs further consideration. As mentioned in the argument, now many home appliances are almost twice as energy-efficient, but what is the total number of appliances each homeowner possesses? It is very likely that as the living conditions improving, more and more new appliances emerge and many homes have more appliances than before. And some once expensive appliances become cheaper so each house may possess more than one, say, television, refrigerators and air conditions. As a result, though each appliance consume less electricity, the total demand for electricity in that area will increase rather than decline.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that undermines the reasoning. Analogy draw between the demand of electricity in past 20 years and the future is suspect because there may be very changes happened as time passing by. For example, if new industry needs lots of electricity, say, iron and steel industry becomes thrive in the future, our needs for electricity may soar out of sight, and the three electric generating plants in operation for the past 20 years can't met the needs.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains and the logic in the memorandum isn't very reasonable. If the argument includes the information about the survey in detail, the data about the appliances in that area, and take changed in the future into consider, it would have veen more thorough and adequate.

polymathUID: 179557

帮你顶！:)

tuesday420UID: 202475

Based on three seemingly reasonable evidences from the planning department of an electric power company, the author gives out a conclusion that construction of new generating plants should not be necessary in the future. To support the conclusion, the arguer points cited some recent survey indicate that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufactures are now making many energy-efficient home application. In addition, he indicates that new technology makes better home insulation and passive solar heating, which can reduce the energy needed, are available. And the third evidence is from the past experience in the past 20 years that existed electric generating plants have always met their needs. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provided compelling support making the argument sound. The author ignores that the soundness of the survey, the aggregate energy needs may increase while the home appliances are more energy-efficient, and the limitation analogy between the past experience and the future needs. These important concerns must be addressed to prove.

In the first place, the survey cited in the argument here(去掉) is too vague to be informative. From the survey, we found little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficient sample so as to be representative of the overall homeowners in that area. If the survey is only based on 10 homeowners, even though all of them are eager to conserve energy, it is obvious that the sample is too small to be sufficient. Besides, the author fails to point out whether the survey in conducted on the foundation of random sampling, if all of the informants are all from some energy-conservation organize, their opinion(s) can't represent all the citizens.

Even the survey is soundness and most homeowners are eager to conserve energy, the proof of the decline demand for electricity in that area needs further consideration. As mentioned in the argument, now many home appliances are almost twice as energy-efficient, but what is the total number of appliances each homeowner possesses(possessing)? It is very likely that as the living conditions improving, more and more new appliances emerge and many homes have more appliances than before. And some once expensive appliances become cheaper so each house may possess more than one, say(say不是举例的意思吧？好像用错了，say应该是”也就是说“), television, refrigerators and air conditions. As a result, though each appliance consume(s) less electricity, the total demand for electricity in that area will increase rather than decline.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that undermines the reasoning. Analogy draw between the demand of electricity in past 20 years and the future is suspect because there may be very changes happened as time passing by. For example, if new industry needs lots of electricity, say, iron and steel industry becomes thrive in the future, our needs for electricity may soar out of sight, and the three electric generating plants in operation for the past 20 years can't met the needs.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence(s) cited in the analysis does(do) not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains and the logic in the memorandum isn't very reasonable. If the argument includes the information about the survey in detail, the data about the appliances in that area, and take changed in the future into consider(ation), it would have veen(??) more thorough and adequate.

缺点都找的不错，可以着重提高一下写作技巧了，加油 :)

fairy115UID: 200324

呵呵，最后一个错误是have been 汗！！！
谢谢你哦，只是担心考场上没有时间来细细找错误。。。

polymathUID: 179557

Based on three seemingly reasonable evidences from the planning department of an electric power company, the author gives out a conclusion that construction of new generating plants should not be necessary in the future. To support the conclusion, the arguer points cited怎么２个谓语？按照你的意思用cites the result of some recent survey in whichindicate that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufactures are now making many energy-efficient home application. In addition, he indicates that new technology makes better home insulation and passive solar heating, which can reduce the energy needed, are available. And the third evidence is from the past experience in the past 20 years that existed electric generating plants have always met their needs. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provided compelling support making the argument sound. The author ignores that the soundness of the survey, the aggregate energy needs may increase while the home appliances are more energy-efficient, and the limitation analogy between the past experience and the future needs. These important concerns must be addressed to prove.第一段太长了吧！看你整个的文章布局，有点头大的感觉！作者的错误不用全部指出来，拣最明显的说一下就行，要不然你下面在进行批驳的时候用到很多重复．在结尾陈述自己观点时也不要太罗嗦，一句话就行啊！

In the first place, the survey cited in the argument here(去掉) is too vague to be informative. From the survey, we found little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficient sample so as to be representative of the overall homeowners in that area. If the survey is only based on 10 homeowners, even though all of them are eager to conserve energy, it is obvious that the sample is too small to be sufficient. Besides, the author fails to point out whether the survey in conducted on the foundation of random sampling, if all of the informants are all from some energy-conservation organize, their opinion(s) can't represent all the citizens.

Even the survey is soundnesssound and most homeowners are eager to conserve energy, the proof of the decline demand for electricity in that area needs further consideration. As mentioned in the argument, now最好放到appliances后面，用nowadays many home appliances are almost twice as energy-efficient, but what is the total number of appliances each homeowner possesses(possessing)? It is very likely that as the living conditions improvingimprove, more and more new appliances emerge and many homeshome是可数吗？ have more appliances than before. And some once expensive appliances become cheaper so each house may possess more than one, say(say不是举例的意思吧？好像用错了，say应该是”也就是说“), television, refrigerators and air conditions. As a result, though each appliance consume(s) less electricity, the total demand for electricity in that area will increase rather than decline.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that undermines the reasoning. Analogy drawdrew between the demand of electricity in past 20 years and the future is suspect because there may be very changes happened as time passing by. For example, if new industry needs lots of electricity, say, iron and steel industry becomes thrive in the future, our needs for electricity may soar out of sight, and the three electric generating plants in operation for the past 20 years can't met the needs.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence(s) cited in the analysis does(do) not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains and the logic in the memorandum isn't very reasonable. If the argument includes the information about the survey in detail, the data about the appliances in that area, and take changed in the future into consider(ation), it would have veen(??) more thorough and adequate.

总评：错误分析得都不错，还是要注意组织上和语言上的问题！继续加油啊！:D