[a习作temp] argument17 7月高频必回拍 [复制链接]

amostime
UID：2117906

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 191
注册时间: 2005-7-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-24 01:25:42 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------摘要------
作者：even 共用时间：44分5秒 514 words
从2005年6月24日0时50分到2005年6月24日1时37分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------

A letter to the editor of Walnut Grove town newspaper suggested the town council to continue its trash collection service contract with EZ Disposal and not to switch to ABC Waste. Though EZ recently raises its monthly fee, the author supported his advice on the facts that EZ collects trash more often, has ordered new trucks and enjoys high rate of satisfaction. However, the conclusion is logically flawed, which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

The letter suggested that EZ has an advantage over ABC with its more frequent trash collection. However, the evidences given are not strong enough to bolster the assumption of the superiority of EZ's service. The author cited that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. But not further information is given regarding the quality of the trash collection. There is possibility that though ABC doesn't collect trash so frequently, it does a better job and actually works better for ensuring a clear environment. Therefore, we are not sure of EZ's superiority unless more relevant information is provided.

In addition, the author suggested that EZ is more competitive from the mere fact that it has ordered additional trucks. This argument is not substantiated, as we are not provided with the cause-and-effect relationship between the number of trucks and the service standard. Without proving this relationship, it is equally possible that the more trucks there are, the lower service level it will be. What's more, even if the author could prove a causal linkage, the fact that EZ has only ordered the trucks does not guarantee that they've already got the trucks and put them into use.

The author also asserted that EZ provides exceptional service because 80 percent of the respondents to last year's town survey claimed they were satisfied with its service. The conclusion is flawed in several aspects. Firstly, we are not sure whether these respondents typify the majority of the citizens in the town. It is possible that these people were not so concerned about the cleanliness of town, or some might them might just moved in and don't know much about EZ's previous performance. Even if EZ did provide good service last year, it does not ensure that it will continue to do so. Therefore, unless more information is given about EZ's present performance, we can not decide on the quality of it service.

Last but not least, even though EZ's better performance is justified, there might still be problems in persuading the council. The council could have a budget of only $2000 a month for trash collections, and therefore, it will be running short of money if it sticks with its contract with EZ.

To conclude, the author's suggestion that the town council should continue its contract with EZ is not substantiated as it is based on flawed arguments. We are not sure of the quality standard of EZ's services and thus can not favor it against ABC. Further information about whether the new trucks have been put into use and whether EZ did the work better than ABC with a more frequent collection is needed to make the decision.

[ Last edited by amostime on 2005-7-25 at 01:14 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

seraph_hyde
UID：184809

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1022
注册时间: 2004-11-4
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2005-7-25 09:14:45 |只看该作者

A letter to the editor of Walnut Grove town newspaper suggested the town council to continue its trash collection service contract with EZ Disposal and not to switch to ABC Waste. Though EZ recently raises its monthly fee, the author supported his advice on the facts that EZ collects trash more often, has ordered new trucks and enjoys high rate of satisfaction. However, the conclusion is logically flawed, which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

The letter suggested that EZ has an advantage over ABC with its more frequent trash collection. However, the evidences given are not strong enough to bolster the assumption of the superiority of EZ's service. The author cited that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. But not further information is given regarding the quality of the trash collection. There is possibility that though ABC doesn't collect trash so frequently, it does a better job and actually works(such as?) better for ensuring a clear environment. Therefore, we are not sure of EZ's superiority unless more relevant information is provided.

In addition, the author suggested that EZ is more competitive from the mere fact that it has ordered additional trucks. This argument is not substantiated, as we are not provided with the cause-and-effect relationship between the number of trucks and the service standard. Without proving this relationship, it is equally possible that the more trucks there are, the lower service level it will be. What's more, even if the author could prove a causal linkage, the fact that EZ has only ordered the trucks does not guarantee that they've already got the trucks and put them into use. (they have not, but they may get and use them later, so it better be emend to "does not guarantee that they will get and put the trucks in to use")
The author also asserted that EZ provides exceptional service because 80 percent of the respondents to last year's town survey claimed they were satisfied with its service. The conclusion is flawed in several aspects. Firstly, we are not sure whether these respondents typify the majority of the citizens in the town. It is possible that these people were not so concerned about the cleanliness of town, or some might them might just moved in and don't know much about EZ's previous performance. Even if EZ did provide good service last year, it does not ensure that it will continue to do so. Therefore, unless more information is given about EZ's present performance, we can not decide on the quality of it service.

Last but not least, even though EZ's better performance is justified, there might still be problems in persuading the council. The council could have a budget of only $2000 a month for trash collections, and therefore, it will be running short of money if it sticks with its contract with EZ.(good point)

To conclude, the author's suggestion that the town council should continue its contract with EZ is not substantiated as it is based on flawed arguments. We are not sure of the quality standard of EZ's services and thus can not favor it against ABC. Further information about whether the new trucks have been put into use and whether EZ did the work better than ABC with a more frequent collection is needed to make the decision.

pretty good job, only the reiteration of the argument was a little excess, carry on!

Mayflower blossoms in June...
其实我是一个变形金刚...

使用道具举报