[a习作temp] Argument17【MathSCU 10G】第25次作业 by shrek8081 [复制链接]

shrek8081
UID：2339983

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 285
注册时间: 2007-5-18
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-10 12:53:31 |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

In this argument, the arguer concludes that residents of the Walnut Crove town should continue using EZ to collect trash although it's price has increased. To support the conclusion, the arguer states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ currently has ordered additional trucks and 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performances. At the first glance, the argument seems well presented, yet after further scrutiny, I find it problematic on several grounds.
To begin with, the arguer fails to consider that what the residents of the Walnut Grove really concerns: money or service. Assuming that ABC's service is only a little worse than that of EZ and so is the efficiency, however, the efficiency is not a very serious problem as to affect the hygiene condition and health of the residents, and considering the more charged $500 per month, the residents may choose ABC rather than EZ to collect their trash. What's more, since the town council has advocated this suggestion of switching from EZ to ABC, perhaps the expensive EZ's trash fee has made the financial problem and therefore the whole running system of the town. Failing to consider these problems, the arguer cannot convince me.

In addition, by citing the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, the author claims that the efficiency of EZ is superior to that of ABC’s. If ABC collects much more trash once than EZ, then it is likely that ABC has higher efficiency of collecting trash than EZ. Also, the author provides no assurance the additional trucks EZ has ordered would be put in to use, thus it tells us nothing about the performance of EZ, of course, cannot persuade me..

Finally, that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey said to be satisfied with EZ's performance is not evident enough to support the arguer's conclusion as well. Firstly, how do I know whether the survey’s respondents are representative of overall population? Secondly, even if that EZ' performance is satisfactory; we cannot rule out the possibility that ABC's performance is equal with, even better than that of EZ.

To sum up, the arguer fails to convince us by failing to provide us more detailed information about the efficiency and performance of EZ and ABC. Also, what is the priority of the residents and the council should be found out as well. To bolster this argument, the arguer should make more investigation and provide us more evidences as for the

回应
0

使用道具举报

破釜沉舟
UID：2113052

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 301
注册时间: 2005-7-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-8-10 21:38:46 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer concludes that residents of the Walnut Crove town should continue using EZ to collect trash although it's price has increased. To support the conclusion, the arguer states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ currently has ordered additional trucks and 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performances. At the first glance, the argument seems well presented, yet after further scrutiny, I find it problematic on several grounds.

To begin with, the arguer fails to consider that what the residents of the Walnut Grove really concerns: money or service. Assuming that ABC's service is only a little worse than that of EZ and so is the efficiency, however, the efficiency is not a very serious problem as to affect the hygiene condition and health of the residents, and considering the more charged $500 per month, the residents may choose ABC rather than EZ to collect their trash. What's more, since the town council has advocated this suggestion of switching from EZ to ABC, perhaps the expensive EZ's trash fee has made the financial problem and therefore the whole running system of the town. Failing to consider these problems, the arguer cannot convince me.(还可以说说市里决定换公司的原因并不主要是钱的问题，或许是EZ自身出了问题或者ABC有某个明显的优势)

In addition, by citing the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, the author claims that the efficiency of EZ is superior to that of ABC’s. If ABC collects much more trash once than EZ, then it is likely that ABC has higher efficiency of collecting trash than EZ. Also, the author provides no assurance the additional trucks EZ has ordered would be put in to use, thus it tells us nothing about the performance of EZ, of course, cannot persuade me..（反驳这两个证据可以多举一些反例，比如EZ买车可能是原有的车很旧快不能用了等，使内容充实）

Finally, that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey said to be satisfied with EZ's performance is not evident enough to support the arguer's conclusion as well. Firstly, how do I know whether the survey’s respondents are representative of overall population? Secondly, even if that EZ' performance is satisfactory; we cannot rule out the possibility that ABC's performance is equal with, even better than that of EZ.

To sum up, the arguer fails to convince us by failing to provide us more detailed information about the efficiency and performance of EZ and ABC. Also, what is the priority of the residents and the council should be found out as well. To bolster this argument, the arguer should make more investigation and provide us more evidences as for the 限时没写完？？

总的来说论述比较到位，文章结构，批驳顺序也很合理。就是后两段有些单薄。

使用道具举报