标题: 【0906G Fight 4月同心砥砺冲刺组】第一周第二次作业 argument17 by 4 改 by qldingyu [打印本页] 作者: qldingyu 时间: 2009-2-19 19:52:42 标题: 【0906G Fight 4月同心砥砺冲刺组】第一周第二次作业 argument17 by 4 改 by qldingyu
In this argument, the author claims that the Walnut Grove town council's switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is ill-conceived. To support his conclusion, the author points out the facts that compared to ABC Waste, EZ collects trash more frequently and owns more additional trucks. The result of an survey which revealed that 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. However, careful examination of the supporting evidence reveals that it lend less credible support to the author's recommendation.
First of all, there is no evidence that the higher frequency of EZ's collecting trash will bring about more benefits to the town. It is entirely possible that collecting trash twice a week is unnecessary considered the amount of trash generated. If so, even if the fee per collection raised by EZ is considerately lower than ABC, it is actually a great waste to the town. For this reason, it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion until the author provides evidence that Walnut Grove's town will benefit from an additional collection per week.
Moreover, the number of trucks is not the only factor to evaluate a disposal company's efficiency and performance inWalnut Grove's town.（我觉得这句话不太对，因为题目也只是说Moreover就是说作为一个参数而不是唯一参数） Since the author doesn't inform us of the usage of these additional trucks , there is probability that these trucks are ordered for service in other towns or other work. In addition, the author failed to take into account other qualities, such as credit, procedure and technology of trash collection, of these two companies. So there is no evidence that EZ Disposal would be more efficient and beneficial（从GW角度来讲应该EZ越不受益越好，suitable）.
Nor does the result of last year's survey lend significant support to the author's claim. We are not informed of the questions asked in the survey, thus we could not evaluate whether the answer "satisfied" is significant （enough to mean a high level of satisfaction among the residents in GW）. The author also fails to provide assurance that all the people investigated are familiar with EZ's performance. Even conceiving that the survey could truly reflect people's feedback towards EZ Disposal, it is also possible that the citizens will be more satisfied with ABC Waste.
To sum up, the argument in the Walnut Grovetown newspaper is not persuasive. To bolster it the author should provide clearer evidence that one more collection per week is necessary for the town and they will benefit from ABC's additional trucks. He should also provide more detailed information about the survey to substantiate that citizens are more satisfied with EZ Disposal compared to ABC Waste.
写得比较流畅，我觉得在在多加一些反例就更丰满了