argument17 南智组娓娓第18次作业

qqwuweiyiUID: 2223826

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."

9:25-10.26  503

According the argument, we know that Walnut Grove’s town council decide to use ABC Waste instead of EZ Disposal, because of the fee of the EZ Disposal raised to $2500 while the ABC Waste is still $2000. I agree with the arguer to suspicious the decision the council made and consider it in several aspects, like the frequency of collecting trash, the equipments they have and people’s response of them, but it is not abundant to receive the conclusion that the town council is mistaken, with the evidence the arguer suggests. There are several critical fallacies.


First of all, the arguer suggests that according to the collection frequency, EZ is twice a week while ABC only once, but that indicates noting. Walnut Grove town may be, just a small town, and there are a few citizens with a little garbage every day making. So the company needs not to deal with the trash twice a week, and once a week is enough. On the other hand, may be, ABC has very good methods to collect garbage, such as classifying the garbage and keeping it well not making trouble to the citizens, or the citizens never feel the refuse dump is a dirty place instead a beautify vision in the town, hence, ABC has no need to disposal trash twice a week. But EZ, may be let trash exposure in the air every day, he must disposal garbage twice a week to keep the trash place clean, even if, it may no better than ABC.

Second, EZ and ABC have the same number of trucks, which is no advantage in the number. But how about the trucks’ quality, may be, EZ’s trucks are older than ABC’s, when they are working always make a lot of noisy to disturb citizens’ sleeping. Also, the arguer says ABC disposes trash once a week and EZ twice a week, so ABC may need 20 trucks to load trash but EZ 10 trucks, if the type and capability of trucks are the same. Therefore, it is a waste of the source in EZ. And in this situation, ABC is better than EZ.

In addition, there is a survey that 80 percent of respondents are pleasure with EZ’s work. But there is no comparing, so no persuasion. Citizens have never known the service of ABC, if they have attempted his service, they may have the equal estimate about which one is better. On the other hand, the survey is only about last year, what about the last eight years and this year, no involved. Consequently, we have no evidence to say EZ’s service is good in this ten years and is better than ABC’s.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the reality situation of EZ’s service comparing with ABC’s. Moreover, the arguer should suggested all-sided evidence with every aspect.

luckychinaUID: 2131861

According(to)the argument, we know that Walnut Grove’s town council decide to use ABC Waste instead of EZ Disposal, because of the fee of the EZ Disposal raised to $2500 while the ABC Waste is still $2000. I agree with the arguer to suspicious the decision the council made and consider it in several aspects(我只看到过有人的issue写的像argu的，还没见过把argu写成像issue的哦，不知道这样好不好), like the frequency of collecting trash, the equipments they have and people’s response of them, but it is not abundant to receive the conclusion that the town council is mistaken, with the evidence the arguer suggests. There are several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer suggests that according to the collection frequency（the frequency of the collection）, EZ is twice a week while ABC only once, but that indicates noting(nothing). Walnut Grove town may be, just a small town, and there are a few citizens with a little garbage every day making. So the company needs not to deal with the trash twice a week, and once a week is enough. On the other hand, (一般要和on one hand连用) may be, ABC has very good methods to collect garbage, such as classifying the garbage and keeping it well not making trouble to the citizens, or the citizens never feel the refuse dump is a dirty place instead a beautify vision（有些词性用得不对） in the town, hence, ABC has no need to disposal trash twice a week. But EZ, may be let trash exposure in the air every day, he must disposal garbage twice a week to keep the trash place clean, even if, it may no better than ABC.段末不要忘了适当总结一下

Second, EZ and ABC have the same number of trucks, which is no advantage in the number. But how about the trucks’ quality, may be, EZ’s trucks are older than ABC’s, when they are working always make a lot of noisy to disturb citizens’ sleeping.（语法错）Also, the arguer says ABC disposes trash once a week and EZ twice a week, so ABC may need 20 trucks to load trash but EZ 10 trucks, if the type and capability of trucks are the same. Therefore, it is a waste of the source in EZ. And in this situation, ABC is better than EZ.

In addition, there is a survey that 80 percent of respondents are pleasure（词性错）with EZ’s work. But there is no comparing, so no persuasion. Citizens have never known the service of ABC, if they have attempted his service, they may have the equal estimate about which one is better. On the other hand, the survey is only about last year, what about the last eight years and this year, no involved. Consequently, we have no evidence to say EZ’s service is good in this ten years and is better than ABC’s.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the reality situation of EZ’s service comparing with ABC’s. Moreover, the arguer should suggested all-sided evidence with every aspect.

To Weiwei,
总体来说是不错的，注意三点
1．开头的写法有点争议
2．每个body结束后最好简短的总结一下
3．注意一些明显的语法错误
好好干，+U~~

Lucky

qqwuweiyiUID: 2223826

恩，我的开头这样可能是有问题，呵呵，我写的时候好像就是把issue的写道argument了