argument17 [加州阳光]第三次作业请排砖

lixiaomin046400UID: 2207959

17. 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." （72）

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

正文（631）：
In the letter, the author recommends that although EZ Disposal raised its monthly fee Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, which has offered trash collection services to Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week and EZ has ordered additional trucks despite both EZ and ABC have the same number of trucks currently. Furthermore, the author cites last year's town survey in which 80 percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. In several respects, however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the author fails to provide any evidence that collecting trash twice a week is necessary. Perhaps one collection per week can suffice to dispose all of the town's trash. If so, although EZ provides more than 50% service only to receive 25% expense, it is a kind of waste for the residents. Therefore, it would make no sense to choose EZ's costly service.

Secondly, even if twice collections per week are essential, the author assumes that because EZ has ordered more trucks it will provide more service. Yet the author provides no evidence that these trucks will be used in collecting trash in Walnut Grove. Perhaps EZ orders more trucks in order to expand its business scope, for instance, EZ decides to provide trash collection service to another town using these additional trucks. Moreover, whether the trucks used in disposing Walnut Grove's trash are deficient should be presented more information. It is entirely possible that the current trucks are enough or even redundant to dispose trash. Since the author has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim that the town council should sign a contract for garbage collection with EZ is untenable.

Thirdly, even assuming that additional trucks will be used in Walnut Grove, the author's conclusions about the council should not switch from EZ to ABC depend on the survey results are statistically reliable. However, the author offers no evidence to substantiate these results. The survey is too vague, it fails to point out the number of people surveyed, the number of respondents---whether the respondents are representative of the overall group of people, how the survey was conducted. Maybe people who are content with EZ take part in the survey. And since EZ has offered the service for ten years, ABC is not familiar to the residents in Walnut Grove. Hence the survey is quite suspect unless the author account for more explanation. In addition, the survey does not indicate that the residents would like to spend more money on this content service. Without justifying the survey is valid it cannot convince me on the basis of them that the council should contract with EZ.

Finally, the author ignores why EZ raised its monthly fee and whether the fee is reasonable. Perhaps lacking competitive opponent makes EZ want to gain more profits, or its costs increased due to EZ's incorrect management. In addition, there are no records of ABC's service such as its credit standing, technology used to dispose trash and so on. Thus it is cursory to come to conclusion that EZ is better than ABC.

In conclusion, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate that collecting trash twice a week is indispensable and the fee EZ charges is reasonable. Besides, the author must provide evidence to prove that the additional trucks ordered by EZ are necessary and these trucks will be used in Walnut Grove to offer more service. To better evaluate the recommendation, the author should also justify the validity of the recent survey.

joey.liuUID: 2207101

1. 首先，arguer没有说明一周清扫两次是否必要
2. 即使必要，arguer没有说明那么多卡车是否真的用于清垃圾
3. 即使是，arguer调查的结果又不能证实
4. arguer没有说明提高费用的合理性

还请多指点：
http://www.gter.edu.cn/bbs/viewt ... &extra=page%3D1

lastpearlUID: 2119955

17. 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." （72）

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

正文（631）：
In the letter, the author recommends that although EZ Disposal raised its monthly fee Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, which has offered trash collection services to Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week and EZ has ordered additional trucks despite both EZ and ABC have the same number of trucks currently. Furthermore, the author cites last year's town survey in which 80 percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. In several respects, however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the author fails to provide any evidence that collecting trash twice a week is necessary. Perhaps one collection per week can suffice to dispose all of the town's trash. If so, although EZ provides more than 50% service only to receive 25% expense, it is a kind of waste for the residents. Therefore, it would make no sense to choose EZ's costly service.

Secondly, even if twice collections per week are essential, the author assumes that because EZ has ordered more trucks it will provide more service. Yet the author provides no evidence that these trucks will be used in collecting trash in Walnut Grove. Perhaps EZ orders more trucks in order to expand its business scope, for instance, EZ decides to provide trash collection service to another town using these additional trucks. Moreover, whether the trucks (are) used in disposing Walnut Grove's trash are deficient (uncertain) (加上一个连词and) should be presented more information. (这句话的意思不是很明确，是想说不能确定这些卡车是否用于处理垃圾，还是其他？) It is entirely possible that the current trucks are enough or even redundant to dispose trash. Since the author has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim that the town council should sign a contract for garbage collection with EZ is untenable. (这个结论是不是下得有点早了)
Thirdly, even assuming that additional trucks will be used in Walnut Grove, the author's conclusions about the council should not switch from EZ to ABC depend on the survey results are statistically reliable.(意思有问题，既然调查结果是可信赖得，为什么不能得到结论呢？应该是which are not statistically reliable吧？) However, the author offers no evidence to substantiate these results. The survey is too vague, it fails to point out the number of people surveyed, the number of respondents---whether the respondents are representative of the overall group of people, how the survey was conducted. Maybe people who are content with EZ take part in the survey. And since EZ has offered the service for ten years, ABC is not familiar to the residents in Walnut Grove. Hence the survey is quite suspect unless the author account for more explanation. In addition, the survey does not indicate that the residents would like to spend more money on this content service. Without justifying the survey is valid it cannot convince me on the basis of them that the council should contract with EZ.

Finally, the author ignores why EZ raised its monthly fee and whether the fee is reasonable. Perhaps lacking competitive opponent makes EZ want to gain more profits, or its costs increased due to EZ's incorrect management. In addition, there are no records of ABC's service such as its credit standing, technology used to dispose trash and so on. Thus it is cursory to come to conclusion that EZ is better than ABC.

In conclusion, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate that collecting trash twice a week is indispensable and the fee EZ charges is reasonable. Besides, the author must provide evidence to prove that the additional trucks ordered by EZ are necessary and these trucks will be used in Walnut Grove to offer more service. To better evaluate the recommendation, the author should also justify the validity of the recent survey

思维很清楚，加油:victory:

mercurywaterUID: 2179090

17. 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." （72）

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

In the letter, the author recommends that although EZ Disposal raised its monthly fee Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, which has offered trash collection services to Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week and EZ has ordered additional trucks despite [prep. 不能加句子] both EZ and ABC have the same number of trucks currently. Furthermore, the author cites last year's town survey in which 80 percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. In several respects, however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the author fails to provide any evidence that collecting trash twice a week is necessary. Perhaps one collection per week can suffice to dispose all of the town's trash. If so, although EZ provides more than 50% service only to receive 25% expense, it is a kind of waste for the residents. Therefore, it would make no sense to choose EZ's costly service.

Secondly, even if twice collections[去掉collections TWICE ad. 两倍,两次 n. 两次] per week are essential, the author assumes that because EZ has ordered more trucks it will provide more service[services] . Yet the author provides no evidence that these trucks will be used in collecting trash in Walnut Grove. Perhaps EZ orders more trucks in order to expand its business scope, for instance, EZ decides to provide trash collection service to another town using these additional trucks. Moreover, whether the trucks used in disposing [Walnut Grove's trash are deficient should be presented more information][这句话有两个谓语不对吧] . It is entirely possible that the current trucks are enough or even redundant to dispose trash. Since the author has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim that the town council should sign a contract for garbage collection with EZ is untenable.

Thirdly, even assuming that additional trucks will be used in Walnut Grove, the author's conclusions about [about->that] the council should not switch from EZ to ABC depend on the survey results are statistically reliable. However, the author offers no evidence to substantiate these results. The survey is too vague, it fails to point out the number of people surveyed, the number of respondents---whether the respondents are representative of the overall group of people, how the survey was conducted. Maybe people who are content with EZ take part in the survey. And since EZ has offered the service for ten years, ABC is not familiar to the residents in Walnut Grove. Hence the survey is quite suspect unless the author account for more explanation. In addition, the survey does not indicate that the residents would like to spend more money on this content service. Without [Without ad. 在外面n. 外面,外部prep. 无,没有不能引导后面的句子把] justifying the survey is valid it cannot convince me on the basis of them that the council should contract with EZ.

Finally, the author ignores why EZ raised its monthly fee and whether the fee is reasonable. Perhaps lacking competitive opponent [opponents] makes EZ want to gain more profits, or its costs increased due to EZ's incorrect management. In addition, there are no records of ABC's service such as its credit standing, technology used to dispose trash and so on. Thus it is cursory to come to conclusion that EZ is better than ABC.

In conclusion, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate that collecting trash twice a week is indispensable and the fee EZ charges is reasonable. Besides, the author must provide evidence to prove that the additional trucks ordered by EZ are necessary and these trucks will be used in Walnut Grove to offer more service [services] . To better evaluate the recommendation, the author should also justify the validity of the recent survey.

结构清晰，语言恰当，个别处有小错误，但仍然不亏为一篇优秀的习作，学习ING 加油！！

[ 本帖最后由 mercurywater 于 2006-6-17 21:53 编辑 ]