寄托天下
查看: 440|回复: 1
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[a习作temp] argument17 宝藏 求拍 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望
0
寄托币
323
注册时间
2005-2-27
精华
0
帖子
2
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2005-8-17 18:59:13 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览
Argument 17
In the argument, the arguer advocates that Walunut Goven town should continue to contract with EZ Disposal rather than turn to the ABC Waste. This recommendation is based on the analysis that EZ Disposal had a long time contact with the Walunut Goven town , collects trash twice a week, has a fleet of 20 trucks –has orded additional trucks, etc. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes that the EZ Disposal is a better choice for the Walunut Goven town. This argument is fraught, oversimplifying and unwarranted assumptions.

First of all, the argument is based on a hasty generation. According to the statement, the arguer fails to provide necessary evidence whether the residents care more about the frequency of the collecting service than about the amount of money they are charged. In this case, the effects of EZ collects trash twice a week is same as the ABC Company only once a week, from which it is reasonable for the residents to consider about swich from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. As is known to everyone, it is important to keep the lowest cost in the competition in the market economy. Consequently, it is vague to assume that they would continue to have a contact with EZ Disposal whether the twice a week is the most concerning matter the residents faithfully worry about.

In addition, the fact that many residents are satisfied with EZ’s performance does not eliminate the possibility that these residents will be just as, if not more, satisfied with ABC Waste’s performance. Moreover, comprehensive analysis is necessary to identify whether the residents may satisfied with ABC’s performance much more than the EZ’s after the employed the ABC’s Waste.

Finally, the argument fails to point out that the percentage of people who respond to the survey, therefore, I could not accept the survey before being provided detailed and clear information. As a matter of fact, the EZ has ordered additional trucks tells us little about EZ’s performance.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we support the conclusion, the arguer must present more direct and effective facts to prove that EZ Disposal’s performance is much better than ABC Waste, neverthereless the cost employed rises from $2000 to $3000.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-19 at 11:34 ]
回应
0

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
0
寄托币
323
注册时间
2005-2-27
精华
0
帖子
2
沙发
发表于 2005-8-19 09:36:34 |只看该作者
up up

使用道具 举报

RE: argument17 宝藏 求拍 [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
argument17 宝藏 求拍
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-321179-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部