Argument17 严重超时，郁闷中...

seeyetUID??2218205

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."

In this letter, the arguer proposes that Walnut Grove (WG) should continue using EZ Disposal (EZ) for trash collection services, rather than switch to ABC Waste (ABC), although EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $ 2,000 to $ 2,500, whereas ABC's fee is still $ 2,000. To support this recommendation the arguer cites the following facts: (1) EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once; (2) they both have a fleet of 20 trucks currently, but EZ has order additional trucks; (3) a last year's town survey showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance; (4) WG has had the contract with EZ for the past ten years. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

Firstly, the arguer fails to provide evidence about whether the collection frequency of EZ is necessary. The arguer overlooks the amount of local trash. If the amount is not so large, then the frequency of more than once a week seems unnecessary. Besides, the more frequently the collection is, the more expensive the fee is. It is probably that residents care more about the amount of money. Therefore, we couldn’t believe that this service of EZ is satisfied.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks is little indication that they will be used for trash collection in WG. Maybe EZ has had new contracts for trash collection services with other towns. Or maybe those newly ordered trucks are planed for other purposes but trash collections. The arguer must consider and eliminate these and other possibilities, otherwise, I cannot accept the arguer's implicit claim that newly ordered trucks would used for WG's trash collection.

Thirdly, the arguer provides no evidence that the study's result is statistically reliable. In order to justify the fact that most residents are satisfied with EZ's performance, the study's sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population of residents. Lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the arguer cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Finally, having contract with EZ for the past ten years accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation that WG should continue using EZ. Maybe it is just contract with EZ that lead to, for EZ has no competitors. Or maybe WG wants to try new cooperation, which is better than EZ. Moreover, there is no supporting evidence to eliminate the possibility that residents will be satisfied with ABC's performance.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer must provide clear evidence to illustrate that what frequency of collection service is needed, what the planned purpose of newly ordered trucks is. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know whether the survey is based on a sufficiently representative sample, and the concrete performance of ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 seeyet 于 2006-7-11 10:19 编辑 ]

莎拉UID??2185851

我也写了这篇 结构跟你大致差不多 有空的话麻烦去看一下吧 呵呵 THX~
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

[ 本帖最后由 莎拉 于 2006-7-11 23:21 编辑 ]

莎拉UID??2185851

In this letter, the arguer proposes that Walnut Grove (WG) should continue using EZ Disposal (EZ) for trash collection services, rather than switch to ABC Waste (ABC), although EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $ 2,000 to $ 2,500, whereas ABC's fee is still $ 2,000. To support this recommendation the arguer cites the following facts: (1) EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once; (2) they both have a fleet of 20 trucks currently, but EZ has order additional trucks; (3) a last year's town survey showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance; (4) WG has had the contract with EZ for the past ten years. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.(开头段会不会太长了？典型的北美范文上的开头，但是那本书的前面说他写那么长的开头是帮助我们分析ARGU，而不要出现在我们的文章中)

Firstly, the arguer fails to provide evidence about whether the collection frequency of EZ is necessary. The arguer overlooks the amount of local trash. If the amount is not so large, then the frequency of more than once a week seems unnecessary. Besides, the more frequently the collection is, the more expensive the fee is. It is probably that residents care more about the amount of money. Therefore, we couldn’t believe that this service of EZ is satisfied.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks is little indication that they will be used for trash collection in WG. Maybe EZ has had new contracts for trash collection services with other towns. Or maybe those newly ordered trucks are planed for other purposes but （not for）trash collections. The arguer must consider and eliminate these and other possibilities, otherwise, I cannot accept the arguer's implicit claim that newly ordered trucks would (be) used for WG's trash collection.

Thirdly, the arguer provides no evidence that the study's result is statistically reliable. In order to justify the fact that most residents are satisfied with EZ's performance, the study's sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population of residents. Lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the arguer cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Finally, having contract with EZ for the past ten years accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation that WG should continue using EZ. Maybe it is just contract with EZ that lead to, for EZ has no competitors. Or maybe WG wants to try new cooperation, which is better than EZ. Moreover, there is no supporting evidence to eliminate the possibility that residents will （加个not吧）be satisfied with ABC's performance.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer must provide clear evidence to illustrate that what frequency of（how frequent the） collection service is needed, what the planned purpose of (the) newly ordered trucks is. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know whether the survey is based on a sufficiently representative sample, and the concrete performance of ABC.

整体还不错哦，挑不出什么大的毛病，就是开头长了点

[ 本帖最后由 莎拉 于 2006-7-11 23:22 编辑 ]