[i习作temp] argument17 第1次作业，欢迎血拍 [复制链接]

SamuelLIN
UID：2364985

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 32
注册时间: 2007-7-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-21 10:53:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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."

提纲：
1.开头
2.EZ公司每周清运两次垃圾并不能给小镇带来好处，反而可能增加噪声和污染（相对于ABC公司）
3.EZ增加的卡车计划很可能与小镇无关，因为这些卡车可能用于其他地区或者只是替代旧的卡车
4.作者所举的调查的代表性和进行的时间都没有提供说明，而且调查结果没有与ABC公司作相应的比较
5.结尾：针对上述三点提出改善建议

The author is against the decision of Walnut Grove's town council that switching from ES Disposal to ABC Waste. With using some deficient evidences, the arguer recommends that the town shall continue using EZ. One of the author’s evidences is that EZ collects trash two times a week while ABC does once. The arguer also notes that, although the two companies have the same trucks at current, EZ has ordered additional trucks. What’s more, the author quotes a survey in which 80% respondents satisfy the performance of EZ. However, this recommendation is specious in several respects.

To begin with, the fact that EZ collects trash one more time a week than ABC does not indicate that Walnut Grove town has benefited from the more collection times of EZ. No evidences are given by the author to prove such profits. Furthermore, if the amount of trash produced in Walnut Grove's town is needed to collect only once a week, extra noisy and air pollution are brought by the trucks of EZ contrasting with ABC.

The author also refers that, EZ has ordered additional trucks and so it will have more trucks than ABC. This fact indicates an assumption that these additional trucks will improve the service of trash collections in Walnut Grove's town. But that is not the case. Obviously, the author neglects other possibilities. EZ entirely possibly uses these additional trucks for other areas but not for Walnut Grove's town. Or maybe EZ is going to abandon old trucks and use new ones. If so, the addition plan of EZ is not relative with Walnut Grove's town.

To further support the author’s recommend, a survey in which 80% of respondents satisfy the EZ’s performance is cited. In fact, the survey does not support the recommendation strongly. First, the author does not provide evidences to assure that the respondents in this survey can represent all the customers of EZ. Secondly, no comparison is taken between the same survey results of EZ and ABC. Maybe the customers of ABC have more satisfied with ABC than the EZ’s. Finally, the author also does not show us when the survey was taken. If it was taken before EZ raising its monthly fee, after the fee raising perhaps many respondents change their notions and do not satisfied with EZ’s performance any more. In one word, without more details, the survey is not reliable to support the recommendation.

In sum, without sufficient evidences, the recommendation to continue using EZ in Walnut Grove's town may be not sensible because it obviously causes more cost but perhaps brings no benefits. To justify the recommendation, the author has to prove that the twice times trash collections of EZ favor to the sanitation environment of the town and that the additional trucks will be helpful to improve the service of Walnut Grove's town. To provide the detail that the survey was taken before or after EZ raising the monthly fee and more information on the composition of the survey respondents can better assess the survey’s credibility.

请教：
1.与北美范文比，少了“the author does not indicate when EZ will receive its new trucks; the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Walnut Grove's decision”这点，感觉这点推理隐藏的很深，一般很难想到的啊？是不是应该把它写上去呢？
2.与北美范文比，鄙人多指出了两点逻辑缺陷：一是”清运次数多会带来额外的噪声和空气污染“；二是”调查时间影响调查结果的有用性“。本人感觉挺明显的缺陷，范文没有给出，不知道是不是我的思路有问题？
3.感觉自己的语言表达读上去怪怪的，希望大家多拍拍