argument71 我们的九月 第十次作业

juzijuntuanUID: 2231815

这次的a 感觉很不好 只找出两个主要错误 ，还很不好说 ~~ 恩 希望看看大家是如何写的 好好学习一下~

The author concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly, based on the reason that a new copper-extracting technologies is introduced, which is used up less electricity than the older method, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. But careful examination reveals several mistakes in some aspects.

First, the author questionable claims that the new method of copper-extracting technologies can use much less electricity than the older one to process the same amount of raw ore, which is lack of evidence. For one hand, it is cited in the argument that the new method can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older one only when the proportion of copper in the ore is high, while the information of the electricity spared when the proportion of copper in the ore is low or half is ignored. Perhaps the new method spears little electricity than the old one, which leads to slightly decline of the total amount of electricity used in copper-extracting industry. For the other hand, the exact number of the use of electricity the old method when the proportion of copper is high is not provided, if it is few, then 40 percent discount in the new method is not so considerable and not necessarily cause significant decreasing of electricity consume. Thus, further information is required to make the conclusion reasonable.

Moreover, the author is too hasty to claim that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly, neglecting the assumption not substantiated by any evidence that the new method is widely used in the industry. Because the information about the cost and the apparatus the new method requires, it is unsure that the method is widely used in the industry. If the cost is high and new apparatus is required, the method will probably not be put into practice in some copper-extracting factories and the electric energy consume will not decline. As a result, if no further information is offered, it is unpersuadable to conclude that the electricity used up in the copper-extracting industry will decline significantly.

To sum up, the author unfairly conclude the electric consume will decline in the copper-extracting industry, for the disuffcient evidence that the new method is used up much  less electricity than the old one when use the same copper ore. Hence, if no further information is cited, the argument is not convincing.

owen2_22UID: 2231214

The author concludes that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry will decline significantly, based on the reason that a new copper-extracting technologies is introduced, which is used up less electricity than the older method, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. But careful examination reveals several mistakes in some aspects.

First, the author questionable claims that the new method of copper-extracting technologies can use much less electricity than the older one to process the same amount of raw ore, which is lack of evidence(我觉得lack of credibility比较好). For one hand, it is cited in the argument that the new method can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older one only when（题目说especially when，不是only的意思吧） the proportion of copper in the ore is high, while the information of the electricity spared when the proportion of copper in the ore is low or half is ignored. Perhaps the new method spears（是不是想写spares） little electricity than the old one, which leads to slightly decline of the total amount of electricity used in copper-extracting industry. For the other hand, the exact number of the use of electricity（少连接词） the old method when the proportion of copper is high is not provided, if it is few, then 40 percent discount in the new method is not so considerable and not necessarily cause significant decreasing of electricity consume. Thus, further information is required to make the conclusion reasonable.

Moreover, the author is too hasty to claim that the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly, neglecting the assumption not substantiated by any evidence that the new method is widely used in the industry. Because the information about the cost and the apparatus the new method requires, it is unsure that the method is widely used in the industry. If the cost is high and new apparatus is required, the method will probably not be put into practice in some copper-extracting factories and the electric energy consume will not decline. 另外一个小方面，作者忽略了新技术的其他指标，比如提取出的copper的含量，如果含量很低，质量不过关再省电也不会被厂家考虑。As a result, if no further information is offered, it is unpersuadable to conclude that the electricity used up in the copper-extracting industry will decline significantly.

还有一个assumption，copper的生产量没变。如果生产量大大变多，而且新技术也却是work，但用电量还是不会减少。

To sum up, the author unfairly conclude the electric consume will decline in the copper-extracting industry, for the disuffcient（insufficient） evidence that the new method is used up much less electricity than the old one when use the same copper ore (and the new method is indeed widely used in the industry at the same time.有点仓促，未提新技术的普遍使用) Hence, if no further information is cited, the argument is not convincing.