[a习作temp] argument17 我8月15日就要考了, 哪位好心的各位大侠能帮忙指点一下.谢谢! [复制链接]

stonemonk
UID：2123910

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 402
注册时间: 2005-8-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-6 18:23:08 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

In this analysis, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove town should continue hire EZ Disposal instead of switching to ABC Waste. After careful examination, one can observe that this argument is undermined by some critical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that collecting trash twice a week is better than once a week even when the cost is comparatively higher. It is possible that the town does not need to collect trash twice a week, since there might be not so much trash for disposal so frequently, and collecting trash once a week is enough. At this point, the increasing costs for disposal would probably lead to dissatisfaction among the residents of the town. Therefore, collecting trash twice a week does not necessarily lead to the improvement of the disposal service and the satisfaction of the residents.

In the second place, the arguer groundlessly assumes that the additional trucks would necessarily lead to the improvement of the disposal service. Firstly, the additional trucks might not be used for the usual disposal service, in stead they might be stored for emergencies. Secondly, granted that the additional trucks are used for weekly disposal service as the same with the other trucks. It is likely that the town does not need so many trucks, and this great number of trucks would even threaten the natural environment of the town. Therefore, whether the additional trucks can benefit the town remains uncertain.

What is more, the arguer fails to provide complete statistics of the survey. Without the knowledge of the total number of the sample and the percentage of the respondents in the total sample, the survey lacks credit and representative. It is possible that the total number of the sample is quite small comparative to the total number of residents of the town, and it is also likely that the percentage of the respondents in the total sample is very small. Furthermore the survey was conducted last year, while recently EZ has raised its monthly fee. Because of this change in cost, residents would probably change their view now. All of these possibilities would undermine the evidence provided by the survey significantly.

Finally, granted that the survey is creditable and representative. The arguer fails rule out the possibility that the residents of the town would also be satisfied with the performance of ABC Waste, if not more. Since the town has hired the EZ for ten years, during which the residents of the town hardly had any chance to experience the service of ABC. Therefore, if given a chance to get the service from ABC, residents would probably change their view toward EZ. Without a complete comparison between the performance of EZ and ABC as well as the extent of the residents' satisfaction toward them, we can hardly conclude that EZ is better than ABC.

In summery, this analysis lacks sufficient evidence to support the arguer's recommendation that the town should hire EZ rather than ABC. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more concrete evidence and rule out other factors that might contribute to the better performance and more satisfaction of the residents. To better substantiate the argument, we would need the complete statistics of the survey.

60 min, 542

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-6 at 19:09 ]