Argument17 【加州阳光】第三次作业 sandy 拍呀

sandyfriendUID: 157486

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 434          TIME: 0:49:33          DATE: 2006-6-16

In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that the Walnut Grove’s town (W) should not switch from the EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, although the EZ disposal raises its fee. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the EZ collects trash more times a week and can order additional trucks. This argument is also based on the high satisfactions with the survey about EZ's performance. Nevertheless, this argument is vulnerable in several aspects.
First of all, the arguer fails to consider which aspects are the most important aspects in W 'trash disposal. The owners care about the prices, the collection times or others? If the owners all believe that the price is the first things, ABC Waste tends to be a good choice. If the town should collect trash twice a week to make it clean, EZ may be better. It is because the arguer can not present actually conditions of the town that we can not get the conclusion so quickly. The arguer should make clear the owners’ views to make the proper conclusions.  

Another fallacy is that the arguer uses the wrong survey to support his views. Although 80 percent of the respondents satisfied with the EZ's performances, it does not show the exact number people who take part in the survey or the percent of the people who responded to the survey. They all can prove the authority and validity of the survey.  If only 10 percent of the owners take part in the survey and even more less respondents, the data are basically invaluable. As the result, the arguer should tell me more details of the survey in order to support his claim.

If the survey is valid, we can not reach the conclusion so fast.  Because many residents are satisfied with EZ's performance does not eliminate the possibility that these residents will be just as, if not more, satisfied with ABC's performance. Maybe ABC's can get a more high satisfactions performance with theirs perfect service or have already got high satisfactions in other towns. With no any information about the ABC's services, extending contract of the EZ’s is an arbitrary decision. Only when these two companies can be carefully compared in every aspect did we make a decision to choose the better ones.

To conclude, this argument is no convinced as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that the times of collection tends to be the most important factors for town. To solidify the argument the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the exactly number of survey and the perfect service of the EZ's trash disposal.

[ 本帖最后由 sandyfriend 于 2006-6-16 22:33 编辑 ]

普洱茶UID: 2220388

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 434          TIME: 0:49:33          DATE: 2006-6-16

In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that the Walnut Grove’s town (W) should not switch from the EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, although the EZ disposal raises its fee. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the EZ collects trash more times a week and can order additional trucks. This argument is also based on the high satisfactions with the survey about EZ's performance((呵呵，这里加一个last year 会更准确. Nevertheless, this argument is vulnerable in several aspects.（开头写得不错！很规范！）

First of all, the arguer fails to consider which aspects are the most important aspects（第二个aspects可以删掉） in W 'trash disposal.（加一个what) The owners care about (are)the prices, the collection times or (the)others? If the owners all believe that the price is the first things(thing), ABC Waste tends to be a good choice((but EZ). (But)If the town should collect trash twice a week to make it clean, EZ may be better. It is because the arguer can not present actually conditions of the town (so)that we can not get the conclusion so quickly. The arguer should make clear the owners’ views to make the proper conclusions.  （这一段的思路有些不清晰，论证也不是太有利，有些牵强）

Another fallacy is that the arguer uses the wrong （最好改成unreasonable之类的词）survey to support his views. Although 80 percent of the respondents satisfied with the EZ's performances, it does not show the exact number people who take part in the survey  （and also)the percent of the people who responded to the survey. (only if )the survey fulfil these qualification, then it )can prove the authority and validity of the survey.  (For example)If only 10 percent of the owners take part in the survey and even more less respondents, the data are basically invaluable. As the result, the arguer should tell me more details of the survey in order to support his claim.

(Admittedly)If the survey is valid, we can not reach the conclusion so fast(rapid).  Because many residents are satisfied with EZ's performance does not eliminate the possibility that these residents will be just as, if not more, satisfied with ABC's performance. Maybe ABC's can get a more high satisfactions performance with theirs perfect service or have already got high satisfactions in other towns. With no any information about the ABC's services, extending contract of the EZ’s is an arbitrary decision. Only when these two companies can be carefully compared in every aspect did we make a decision to choose the better ones.(这段满清晰的)

To conclude, this argument is no convinced as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts (and detials)to prove that the times of collection tends to be the most important factors for town. To solidify the argument the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the exactly number of survey and the perfect service of the EZ's trash disposal.

(整篇文章论点比较鲜明,论述也有说服力,比较大的一个问题是对语言的驾驭问题,文字上也还太口语化. 呵呵,一点薄见而已!)

yvonnewhuUID: 2202979

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 434          TIME: 0:49:33    (时间上面有好大进步哦 我还是要一个小时呢)     DATE: 2006-6-16

In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that the Walnut Grove’s town (W) should not switch from the EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, although the EZ disposal raises its fee. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the EZ collects trash more times a week and can order additional trucks. This argument is also based on the high satisfactions with 是否应该用inthe survey about EZ's performance. Nevertheless, this argument is vulnerable in several aspects.开头很不错啊，清晰明了也指出了作者的主要论述。值得学习！！
First of all, the arguer fails to consider which aspects are the most important aspects in W 'trash disposal. The owners care about the prices, the collection times or others? If the owners all believe that the price is the first things, ABC Waste tends to be a good choice. If the town should collect trash twice a week to make it clean 表达上面好像不是太好，可不可以 说成是residents requires, EZ may be better. It is because the arguer can not present actually conditions of the town that we can not get the conclusion so quickly. The arguer should make clear the owners’ views to make the proper conclusions. 改为，only if the owners' biews are clear should the arguer draw this conclusion that EZ is better.
Another fallacy is that the arguer uses the wrong  doesn't use an appropriatesurvey to support his views. Although 80 percent of the respondents satisfied with the EZ's performances, it does not show the exact number people who take part in the survey or the percent of the people who responded to the survey. They all can prove the authority and validity of the survey.  If only 10 percent of the owners take part in the survey and even more less respondents, the data are basically invaluable. As the result, the arguer should tell me more details of the survey in order to support his claim.

If the survey is valid, we can not reach the conclusion so fast.  Because many residents are satisfied with EZ's performance does not eliminate the possibility that these residents will be just as, if not more, satisfied with ABC's performance. Maybe ABC's can get a more high satisfactions performance with theirs perfect service or have already got high satisfactions in other towns. With no any information about the ABC's services, extending contract of the EZ’s is an arbitrary decision. Only when these two companies can be carefully compared in every aspect did we make a decision to choose the better ones.(第二段和第三段，都是在说调查的不合理，是否可以合并呢，好像显得有点冗杂。另外也还可以提出驳斥关于EZ的卡车比ABC多的问题。)
To conclude, this argument is no convinced as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that the times of collection tends to be the most important factors for town. To solidify the argument the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the exactly number of survey and the perfect service of the EZ's trash disposal.最后一段很不错啊，给了很好的建议，还提出了希望。值得学习。

这次的argument语法错误少了好多，有很大进步哦，sandy，值得我学习。但是从逻辑方面可能还要细致一些。

改得不好的，谨请原谅。

[ 本帖最后由 yvonnewhu 于 2006-6-17 21:13 编辑 ]