ARGUMENT17 [奋战10G winner小组]第七次作业 [复制链接]

jin2005feng
UID??2216928

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 266
注册时间: 2006-5-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-10 15:54:06 |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."

This letter recommends that walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ Disposal, which has provided service to walnut Grove for ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To justify this argument, this letter’s author notes that EZ collects twice per week whereas ABC collects only once every week. The author also points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author cites a survey in which 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ’s service. However, I find this recommendation specious on several grounds.

Firstly, the author merely mentions that EZ will collect $500 more than ABC, however, and fails to provide further reasons for extra $500 charged by EZ. Probably the cost increased dramatically made EZ raise its monthly fee such as poor management, high cost of machine, material and labor force. Besides, the financial state of government is rather an important factor especially when government has other immediate events to do. Thus the town has no cause not to select ABC.

Moreover, the fact that EZ collects one more time than ABC is significant only when the town benefits from the additional collection. The author provides no evidence that this is the case. Is it necessary to collect trash twice a week? Probably once a week is enough to deal with all the trash. There is no need for people to pay extra $500 to EZ for the surplus collection.

Finally, the mere fact that EZ ordered additional trucks provides little support to the recommendation. The author simply indicates that these two companies own the same amount of trucks presently without other detailed information about the transportation about the two companies. What’s more, EZ only order additional trucks. This does not indicate that EZ will use all the cars to deal with trash. In addition, the information between the two companies is asymmetrical and the author doesn't give ABC Waste's plan. Probably ABC Waste will order much more trucks. What's more, EZ provides exceptional service, but no evidence suggests that this town needs the exceptional service. In order to intensify the argument, the author gives last year's survey. The survey is suspicious because it doesn't provide more details: who conducted the survey, how the survey was performed and was the respondents representative?

In a word, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the letter’s author must provide more evidences about whether the town’s citizens will benefit from the additional collection for trash and additional service. It would be helpful to obtain the opinions from the citizens who had some experience with both companies.

回应
0

使用道具举报

迷失的自恋者
UID??2374122

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 268
注册时间: 2007-8-2
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-8-10 23:23:18 |只看该作者

This letter recommends that walnut（大写不要疏忽哦） Grove should continue to contract with EZ Disposal, which has provided service to walnut Grove for ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To justify this argument, this letter’s author notes that EZ collects twice per week whereas ABC collects only once every week. The author also points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author cites a survey in which 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ’s service. However, I find this recommendation specious on several grounds.

Firstly, the author merely mentions that EZ will collect $500 more than ABC, however, and fails to provide further reasons for extra $500 charged by EZ. Probably the cost increased dramatically made EZ raise its monthly fee such as poor management, high cost of machine, material and labor force. Besides, the financial state of government is rather an important factor especially when government has other immediate events to do. Thus the town has no cause not to select ABC. （觉得这个点有点偏，感觉作者后面的三个都是在说他虽然贵，但是好，而不是让我们考虑他涨价的原因）

Moreover, the fact that EZ collects one more time than ABC is significant only when the town benefits from the additional collection. The author provides no evidence that this is the case. Is it necessary to collect trash twice a week? Probably once a week is enough to deal with all the trash. There is no need for people to pay extra $500 to EZ for the surplus collection.

Finally, the mere fact that EZ ordered additional trucks provides little support to the recommendation. The author simply indicates that these two companies own the same amount of trucks presently without other detailed information about the transportation about the two companies. What’s more, EZ only order additional trucks. This does not indicate that EZ will use all the cars to deal with trash. In addition, the information between the two companies is asymmetrical and the author doesn't give ABC Waste's plan. Probably ABC Waste will order much more trucks. What's more, EZ provides exceptional service, but no evidence suggests that this town needs the exceptional service. In order to intensify the argument, the author gives last year's survey. The survey is suspicious because it doesn't provide more details: who conducted the survey, how the survey was performed and was the respondents representative? （这段说了4点，一是trucks的问题，二是没有给出ABC的详细信息，三是说EZ的额外服务，四是关于survey，觉得有点混乱，trucks的问题和后两个可以各成一段，按照argument中的提出顺序，ABC的信息问题可以再提出一段，因为不管是在那个问题上都没有给出ABC足够的信息，这样感觉有条理些～）

In a word, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the letter’s author must provide more evidences about whether the town’s citizens will benefit from the additional collection for trash and additional service. It would be helpful to obtain the opinions from the citizens who had some experience with both companies.（觉得这个好～）

总体来说感觉写的有点单薄，很多分析可以再展开点说，还有分段分的清楚些也显得比较有条理，加油～是不是太忙了～：）

使用道具举报