[技术思考] 无背景假设是否可以批驳? --有关racoon的argument就该这样写(二)的再思考 [复制链接]

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.'

1archaic : to justify or support with reasons
2: to persuade or influence by the use of reason
3: to discover, formulate, or conclude by the use of reason <a carefully reasoned analysis>

180.The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper.
"According to the available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977. These were all years with heavy sunspot activity — that is, years when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun."

WORDS: 621          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-11-28

  In this argument, the author first asserts Walnut Grove's town council switches from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste after receiving the former one's services for 10 years, since EZ raised its monthly fee for $500 recently. In this sense, he claims that the council's choice is wrong and suggests they remain the deal with EZ Disposal. To prove EZ's advantages, the author states three facts, including EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects once; EZ has ordered additionally trucks to their fleet, which now is as large as ABC's; EZ is supposed to provide exceptional service according to a recent survey. However, all these facts are insufficient to prove that EZ is a better choice, so well as the precise of this argument is not well testified. A careful check will show us these critical flaws.

  Fundamentally, the author makes his suggestion on a statement that the council changed its waste diposer just for its raised fee, and then makes his efforts to prove this fee is worthy. But as we know, the charge is not the only reason for a council to chose its waste disposer, since many other reasons, such as methods of disposing, social effects, company's reputation and so forth. Without excluding these elements which can be considered, we can properly suspect that ABC waste is taking a more developed way for trashing, causing less air pollution and noises, or it may have a better history in some other cities where the situation is similar to Walnut Grove's. Further investigation about the reasons of the council's decision should be made or it will be useless even the charge of EZ is proved to be worthy.

  Assuming the raised fee is the only reason, and then it comes to the EZ's advantage as the only question: whether its $500 raise is worthy? The author claims it is and states three facts. However, none of they is not detailed in a effective way to make them sound.

  Firstly, it is said that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC just collects once. Although the frequency can tell some of a company's effectiveness, it cannot stand for all. Will the EZ collect more carefully and totally than ABC? Maybe they collect twice just because they cannot collect all the trash once and these twice are closed in time to each other. Such possibilities can cause the frequency useless to assess EZ's service.

  Secondly, EZ has ordered additional trucks as stated, but ABC's situation is not detailed. The author tries to mislead us to an illusion that EZ will have more trucks than ABC since they originally have the same but EZ ordered more. Has ABC also ordered new trucks? We don't know. Even EZ will have more trucks than ABC, how large are these trucks? Can they devote more than ABC's fleet? Are they necessary? All of these questions are left to be answered.

  Thirdly, a survey is cited to prove that EZ provides exceptional service, stating 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey chose 'satisfied' as their answer. But this evidence is insufficient. Also, ABC's service is not surveyed and we cannot make comparison. What sense can 80 percent make? Is this really a high rate? Maybe ABC can have even more satisfied respondents or these citizens did not care much about their waste disposer. Such considerations make the survey insufficient to testify EZ's "exceptional service".

  To sum up, this argument is based on a hasty assertion as precise, and proves no significant evidence. To make his suggestion sounder, the author need to make sure that the financial issue is the only consideration for the council's decision, as well as to provide more evidence to convince us that pay $500 a month is worthy.

原帖由 l5220539 于 2008-3-9 09:40 发表
恩，我昨天也在总结自己的经验，想起2月看来修锐issue中引用的文章，再看了imong的：再论Argument的展开和组织：实例范文详细点评！和使徒同学的三无survey批判问题以后，也有了一些自己的关于argu的想法

这 ...

原帖由 firhaday 于 2008-3-10 12:58 发表
在A的精华区里面可以找到