寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › argument17 [清凉夏日一组16日作业贴]

返回列表

查看: 1181|回复: 6

[a习作temp] argument17 [清凉夏日一组16日作业贴] [复制链接]

helenlhh
UID: 2127690

长老三袋

Rank: 10

声望: 48
寄托币: 21986
注册时间: 2005-8-13
精华: 24
帖子: 191

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-7-16 17:11:29 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

第一篇，大家猛批吧
TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 387 TIME: 0:33:19 DATE: 2006-7-16

In this argument, the arguer claims using EZ as their trash collector as before instead of switching to ABC. He provides evidence that EZ works more times than ABC per week and they has ordered additional trucks. The result of a survey is also put up to support his assertion. However, after a careful observation, we find it too hasty to say that the arguer's claim is reasonable.

In the first place, the arguer simply judges the working ability of the two companies by the times of services they provide. There is no actual causal relationship between working time and the efficiency of working. If we want to evaluate the quality of services of the two companies, we should go further to get more information about how they work. It is possible that ABC performs better than EZ even if they collect trash once a week due to their efficient working method and advanced technology.

Another factor the arguer takes into account is also not convincing. We cannot find any relation between ordering additional trucks and the ability of collecting trash. All that we concerns is that whether the trash collecting service can meet our needs, no matter how many trucks they posses. So far, the arguer fails to show us that EZ performs better than ABC to convince us to use EZ.

Further more, the survey the arguer shows us is also in doubt. We are not well inform that how the surveyor select the sampling. What if the people who were surveyed happened to be in the same limited region where only EZ is used and they know nothing about ABC. Even if this is not the case, the claim that 80 percent of the respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance is also doubtful. We cannot ensure that these people told the truth or perhaps they would benefit from saying so. Even if it is of their real willing, the survey is still unconvincing because we do not know how many people are engaged in this survey. The case might be that most of the people who are surveyed are not interested in it, and the respondents consists only a small portion of the sampling. So it is hard to tell that whether most people are satisfied with EZ's work.

In sum, the arguer fails to show substantiated evidence to support his assertion of choosing EZ. In addition, since the monthly fee is much cheaper in ABC, we may consider it a pleasant choice. Not until the arguer shows more details that EZ is superior to ABC in its work and a well organized survey can we judge that we should choose EZ or not.

提纲：
1、收垃圾次数不能代表工作效率
2、增加卡车数量与收垃圾的服务无关
3、survey 问题

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/forum-1010-1.html][color=orange][size=5][b]新开版的Architecture & Planning[/b][/size][/color][/url]

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/thread-710220-1-1.html][color=green][size=4][u][b]★欢迎加入08工科版专业联盟，热烈讨论中★[/b][/u][/size][/color][/url]

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/thread-708803-1-1.html][color=blue][b]08fall土木工程讨论大贴[/b][/color][/url]

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/thread-713603-1-1.html][color=blue][b]08fall环境工程讨论大贴[/b][/color][/url]

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/thread-686771-1-1.html][color=blue][b]08EE/ECE/CS大贴[/b][/color][/url]

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/thread-718501-1-1.html][color=blue][b]08fallMSE材料科学与工程大贴[/b][/color][/url]

[url=https://bbs.gter.net/thread-716498-1-2.html][color=blue][b]08fallME & AME讨论大贴[/b][/color][/url]
[color=red]更多专业联盟，期待你的参与[/color]

-------------------------------------
[size=3][i]我们一次又一次的飞走，
是为了一次又一次的归来[/i][/size]

回应
0

使用道具举报

loryshuang
UID: 2211255

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2006-5-3
精华: 0
帖子: 8

沙发

发表于 2006-7-16 18:39:37 |只看该作者

先占上

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

loryshuang
UID: 2211255

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2006-5-3
精华: 0
帖子: 8

板凳

发表于 2006-7-16 18:53:07 |只看该作者

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 387 TIME: 0:33:19 DATE: 2006-7-16

In this argument, the arguer claims using EZ as their trash collector as before instead of switching to ABC. He provides evidence that EZ works more times than ABC per week and they has ordered additional trucks. The result of a survey is also put up to support his assertion. However, after a careful observation, we find it too hasty to say that the arguer's claim is reasonable.

In the first place, the arguer simply judges the working ability of the two companies by the times of services they provide. There is no actual causal relationship between working time and the efficiency of working. If we want to evaluate the quality of services of the two companies, we should go further to get more information about how they work. It is possible that ABC performs better than EZ even if they collect trash once a week due to their efficient working method and advanced technology.

Another factor the arguer takes into account is also not convincing. We cannot find any relation between ordering additional trucks and the ability of collecting trash. All that we concerns is that whether the trash collecting service can meet our needs, no matter how many trucks they posses. So far, the arguer fails to show us that EZ performs better than ABC to convince us to use EZ.

Further more, the survey the arguer shows us is also in doubt. We are not well informed that how the surveyor selects the sampling. What if the people who were surveyed happened to be in the same limited region where only EZ is used and they know nothing about ABC. Even if this is not the case, the claim that 80 percent of the respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance is also doubtful. We cannot ensure that these people told the truth or perhaps they would benefit from saying so.这个说法不用要了吧 Even if it is of their real willing, the survey is still unconvincing because we do not know how many people are engaged in this survey. The case might be that most of the people who are surveyed are not interested in it, and the respondents consists only a small portion of the sampling. So it is hard to tell that whether most people are satisfied with EZ's work.

In sum, the arguer fails to show substantiated evidence to support his assertion of choosing EZ. In addition, since the monthly fee is much cheaper in ABC, we may consider it a pleasant choice. Not until the arguer shows more details that EZ is superior to ABC in its work and a well organized survey can we judge that(whether) we should choose EZ or not.

helen, 你的文章写的挺干净的,看起来比较舒服啊!但是我就觉得说调查可信度那,不太好,感觉有点强行啊!哈哈,既然找到足够的错误,这一句话就可以不用了啊,哈哈!
纯属个人意见啊

[ 本帖最后由 loryshuang 于 2006-7-16 19:02 编辑 ]

使用道具举报

helenlhh
UID: 2127690

长老三袋

Rank: 10

声望: 48
寄托币: 21986
注册时间: 2005-8-13
精华: 24
帖子: 191

地板

发表于 2006-7-16 19:50:06 |只看该作者

谢谢呀，下次继续努力

使用道具举报

Charaznablez
UID: 2140987

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 832
注册时间: 2005-9-24
精华: 0
帖子: 2

5楼

发表于 2006-7-17 13:12:26 |只看该作者

一二段跟第三段比都显单薄,一段it is possible that 后面可以再写一两句.二段好像更少了. 也可以说一些可能性吧
其实我觉得这么短时间写这么多很不容易了要不就把一二段合在一起?
不过那样好像一眼看去论点又少了~

使用道具举报

abawtresbon
UID: 2164961

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 766
注册时间: 2005-12-6
精华: 0
帖子: 8

6楼

发表于 2006-7-17 14:06:46 |只看该作者

这道题我看过raccoon的讲解,觉得你的论述顺序不够好,没有很大的杀伤力.
他是这样说的:

###
文章的结论是：But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ.
结论后面的3个证据是很明显的。但是正如我上个文章所说，关键不是看出来这个是证据，而是看出来，它们是谁的证据！！！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D100
接着就是前面一大块。

顺藤摸瓜。。。更确切的说是，顺瓜摸藤
结果我知道了，TC（town council）错了，我们应该选EZ
那为什么说TC错了呢？前面明明有说TC为什么不选EZ的理由啊
仔细一看，hoho，发现一根藤！！！隐含前提1”EZ高价是有道理的“
突然发现，那三个证据，能对上了。
总览下全文”TC提倡找abc收垃圾，而不是之前收了10年的ez，因为ez手费太高。但是[结论]，他们错了，我们还是应该找ez。为什么呢？因为隐含前提——ez高价有道理啊。为什么有道理呢？理由1，一周收2次；理由2，车子多；理由3，客户满意率高“ 这个时候又能突然找到点亮光，你会发现作者说ABC每周收一次，EZ收两次的”言下之意“了——如果要ABC收两次的，很有可能是4000块钱一个月！！！比EZ收费高多了。

很欣慰，我两个同学中的一个找到了这个前提。但是，这个并不是我们要网的最大的鱼！
那哪条才是最大的鱼呢？？？
继续往上摸藤。
“TC提倡找abc收垃圾，而不是之前收了10年的ez，因为ez手费太高。但是[结论]，他们错了，我们还是应该找ez。为什么呢？因为隐含前提——ez高价有道理啊。”
大家发现没有，要整个逻辑链成立，还有个前提，而且是个大前提！！！
那就是“TC之所以要提倡ABC收垃圾，而不是EZ，仅仅是因为EZ的收费高，而没有其他原因！！！”这个就是最大的问题根节所在。
重新理下这个题目。
TC做了个决定，选EZ而不选ABC，就是因为EZ价格高[隐含前提1]。但是TC错了，我们应该选EZ。为什么说他们错呢？因为EZ收费价格高是合理的[隐含前提2]。证据1，2，3。

这个时候，大家发现，所谓的证据里面的逻辑问题，相对于前面的两个隐含的前提来说，就是细枝末节的问题了。根本不值得用3段这么长的篇幅来说了！！！

那应该怎么说？想来说到这里，问题找到了，大家也应该比较会攻击了。
首先，作者的结论基于一个没有被证实的前提1——TC仅仅因为EZ价格高而不选他。完全有可能有别的更重要的原因。比如EZ就是个传统的依靠填埋进行垃圾处理的公司，对环境的污染很大。而ABC是新的垃圾处理公司，经过他们处理的垃圾很多能分离出很多循环再利用，能为我们整个社会节省很多的资源，并且垃圾发酵出来CH4还能给城市提供能源。

其次，作者的结论基于另一个没有被证实的前提2——EZ的高价是有道理的。没有任何证据表明，当EZ收费在2000快的前几年，他就不能提供这样的服务。或者说，即便他需要改进的服务，也不一定确实需要我们每个月多支出给他500块，也许200元是个更合理的价钱呢？

最后，支持EZ高价是reasonable的证据是有瑕疵的。然后简单说下那3个证据的问题，就可以了。
####

使用道具举报

tcaaa
UID: 2215009

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 19
注册时间: 2006-5-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2006-7-17 15:29:43 |只看该作者

argument:147 words:344 欢迎拍砖，并请教如何提高写作文速度
The arguer insists that EZ Disposal not ABC Waste, though it recently charges more for their services, will still be considered to be the prior alternative. The notion that the arguer cares about intensively not the price, but the core service that EZ ordering additional trucks collects more times than ABC, and makes the excellent performance in the consumer survey is well-presented but not thoroughly well-reasoned. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.
First of all, the author commits a fallacy that more times of collecting means more effective method in dealing with the trash. There is no evidence to support that this is the case, nor does the author establish a causal relationship between them. Indeed, it's likely that ABC company adopts the advanced technology which is strongly effectual compared to EZ Disposal so that they can disturb residents decreasingly who enjoys clean environment alike.
It is also the case that why EZ increases their trucks but ABC not. The arguer who might be based on personal angle neglects big trucks while working for collecting rubbish annoy the local police as well for the large size which can block the whole road. Hence, the company must make evaluation between the size of truck and the amount.
In addition, the arguer cites the survey of the content to the EZ Company to demonstrate why he still prefers to EZ. Whereas, it is assumed without justification that background conditions have remained the same at different times. In other words, how EZ performs in the next year will be a X saying nothing of the reliability of the survey. It is highly possible that local people all were not fussy and easy to satisfy, but the council takes care of the most beneficial service. Besides, if immigrants come, we can not take grant of their concerning.
In summary, this Argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence about the detail of the contrast between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste and about the survey.

使用道具举报