argument33 求拍 不需要建立发电厂那个

pswpswpsw

   

The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company.
"Several recent surveys indicate that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy(1) and manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances(2), such as refrigerators and air conditioners, that are almost twice as energy-efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating(2) are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, we anticipate that the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase(3), and may decline slightly. Since our three electric generating plants in operation(5) for the past 20 years have always met our needs, construction of new generating plants should not be necessary(4)."

The writer of the memorandum who claims that construction of new generating plants will not be necessary, seems to offer an cogent argument. However, she/he makes a lot of tenable stated and unstated assumptions ,even the superficial correlations are seemingly logical. And there is a list of the results of those assumptions above examined as follows,revealing the fallacies in his/her reasoning.

 First of all, the writer cites several recent surveys to reinforce his/her argument in that these surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy, with an obvious assumption that these surveys could also apply to their area, and also give the credit to these surveys. However, it is entirely possible that the home owner in their area is not eager to conserve energy, perhaps instead a profusion on energy. And, perhaps these surveys are conducted by the manufacturers which are making home appliances with excellent energy efficiences and have the purpose of inducement of wide usage of energy efficient appliances,while the fact may be opposite. Thus, with the lack of evidence to support the assumptions, the writer couldn't convince me that the total energy is going to decline.

 Secondly, the writer assumes pontifically that the more energy efficient, the less energy consumption there will be. However, it is not always true. For example, it is also possible that the total energy consumption is rising with excellent efficience due to the augment in need of increasing in numbers of home appliances.Even if energy efficient ones do consume less energy than the older one, the writer also assumes unjustly that the most appliances in our area are made up of the energy-efficient appliances which the manufacturers are marketing. Nevertheless,  it is possible that most appliances are still the older ones, which is not that efficient and cost less energy. Thus, it is unfair to conclude such a claim that the total demand for electricity in their area will not increase-and may decline, without checking the reliability of the assumptions above.

 However(改为What's more), the writer also assumes that for the past twenty years have always met their needs doesn't necessarily means next year ,then the needs would also be able met as well. On one hand,considering the development of society, it is entirely possible that the energy would increase as more and more appliances come into everyone home. Anyway, it is natural that things would change with the time flies. On the other hand, what if the tendency of the demand of electricity in their area is increasing, and in the last year the demand just met the supply? Then it is natural to predict that in the next year the demand would likely to be over the supply.
 Without evaluation of these dubious assumptions, the writer cannot convince me of the argument that the construction of new generating plants will not be necessary.

普渡哥

一直是批评意见，为什么用however转折？一般issue里面用however比较多。。

竹林中人

感觉文章的内容还是行的，质疑的地方都很好，但你的结构安排不很合理不很清晰，建议你采用递进式的质疑方式，这样气势不断增强，思维也更严密

pswpswpsw

恩 纠正了

pswpswpsw

这个题目本身是平行式的几个ASSUMPTION  但有1 个直线递进的。      
我现在稍微改了一下 你看合适不合适？