[a习作temp] Argument17 超高频,本来不想写的,还是写了.... [复制链接]

决不妥协
UID：2102035

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 427
注册时间: 2005-5-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-3 21:51:31 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument17: 326 words 30 minutes
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 author recommends that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. To support the recommendation, the author provide the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once although the price of EZ is higher. Then the author claims that the EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally he cites a survey about the satsifactory of the residents. At first glance, this letter is somewhat plausible. However, it suffers from at least three logic problems.

First, It is unreasonable that the author claims that collecting trash twice a week is better than once a week. Before we can reach the conclusion, many factors should be considered. Is it necessary for Walnut Grove town to collect trash twice a week? It is entirely possible that Walnut Grove is a small town where it is enough to collect trash once a week. If this is the case, the EZ's service maybe redundant.

Second, the author concludes that EZ will be provide better service based on the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks. No evidence provided to support that EZ's newly ordered trucks will used in Walnut Grove town. It is quite possible that EZ will extent their business to other towns.

Third, the survey of survey about the satsifactory of people has some problems. There is lack information about how many people take part in the survey. Maybe the people who respond to the survey are not representative of all the residents in the town, and it is possible that many people take part in the survey did not give any response. Without the necessary information, the survey' reliability is doubt.

In conclusion, the author fails to recommend that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. To solidify this recommendation, the author should provide more information about the two companies and the survey and at least rule out the abovementioned possibilities.

8.10 上海

回应
0

使用道具举报

aromapple
UID：2120692

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 117
注册时间: 2005-7-24
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-8-4 17:00:57 |只看该作者

Argument17: 326 words 30 minutes

In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. To support the recommendation, the author provide the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once although the price of EZ is higher. Then the author claims that the EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally he cites a survey about the satsifactory (Adj.) of the residents (a survey to indicate that most residents were satisfied with EZ's service). At first glance, this letter is somewhat plausible. However, it suffers from at least three logic problems.

First, It is unreasonable that the author claims that collecting trash twice a week is better than once a week. (The author provides no evidence that the town would benefit from an additional collection each week.) Before we can reach the conclusion, many factors should be considered. Is it necessary for Walnut Grove town to collect trash twice a week? It is entirely possible that Walnut Grove is a small town where it is enough to collect trash once a week. If this is the case, the EZ's service maybe redundant.

Second, the author concludes that EZ will be provide better service based on the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks. No evidence provided to support that EZ's newly ordered trucks will used in Walnut Grove town. It is quite possible that EZ will extent their business to other towns.

Third, the survey of survey about the satsifactory of people has some problems. (Third, the mere fact that most respondents to a rencent survey considered EZ's service satisfactory bolsters litter to the author's recommendation.) There is lack (lack是名词，a lack of )information about how many people take part in the survey. Maybe the people who respond to the survey are not representative of all the residents in the town, and it is possible that many people take part in the survey did not give any response. Without the necessary information, the survey's reliability is doubt.(也可能对ABC的满意度还要高。)

In conclusion, the author fails to recommend that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. To solidify this recommendation, the author should provide more information about the two companies and the survey and at least rule out the abovementioned possibilities.

使用道具举报