[未归类] Argument17 no pain no gain 敬请拍转 [复制链接]

bravesailer
UID：2177471

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 234
注册时间: 2006-1-18
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-27 15:06:38 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

途中用了不少次金山词霸，对于一些词的用法把握不是很准确。大家不用留情地批..

Argument17
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."

Outline:
1. E计划添加垃圾车，可能A也计划添加垃圾车，数目可能比E还多
2. 对用户的调查只统计了答复者，没有计入参加调查的总人数以及回复的人中在所有人中占的比例
3. 即使所有用户中的80％对E的服务满意，但也不能排除有更高比例的人对A的服务满意

Citing the fact that the EZ Disposal collects trash twice, is going to order additional trucks and provides exceptional service, the author argues the Walnut Groves’s town council should continue using the EZ’s trash collection services instead ABC Waste despite the more expensive fee. However the author’s argument is lack of contrast and therefore is unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, the argument assumes that after EZ Disposal’s adding trucks, the total number of EZ’s truck will more than that of ABC. Whereas there is no evidence that shows the ABC company will not add its trucks considering EZ’s addition. Without this consideration, the author’s conclusion is deficient in logic. Perhaps, in order to be more competitive, ABC will increase its truck number after EZ’s enhancement. Thus it’s hard to say which company will have the bigger number of trucks.

Secondly, as mentioned, 80% of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s service, nevertheless we do not know how many people are involved in this survey and what the percentage of the respondents in all informants is. If there are only approximately 100 people participating in the investigation and only a small part respond to the investigation, the survey has no persuasion. To make this survey more persuasive, the author must illustrate the participant number is big and most people offer feedbacks.

Thirdly, the author does not mention what is the percentage of people who are satisfied with ABC’s service while suggests 80% of respondents approve EZ’s service is satisfying. We recede that the 80% is convincing, however, we can not conclude that people are more approving with the EZ’s serving. Maybe there are more people well-pleasing with the EZ’s service, so we can not conclude from the insufficient fact that EZ gives better service. In order to make its demonstration much stronger, the argument should prove the less people are approving of ABC’s service than of EZ’s.

In sum, the argument makes the conclusion from the unilateral analysis, thus lacks persuasion. In order to make this argument more persuasive, the author should add what ABC will do after EZ’s addition of trucks, as well, mention the population involved in the survey and percentage of participants responding to the survey, and demonstrate there are not so many people approving of ABC’s service than EZ’s.

[ 本帖最后由 bravesailer 于 2006-1-27 15:42 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

lorraineye
UID：2157370

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 1
寄托币: 1736
注册时间: 2005-11-13
精华: 1
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2006-1-27 20:43:35 |只看该作者

Citing the fact that the EZ Disposal collects trash twice, is going to order additional trucks and provides exceptional service, the author argues [咱们是argue哈，他应该是suggest或advise] the Walnut Groves’s town council should continue using the EZ’s trash collection services instead ABC Waste despite the more expensive fee [感觉这句话承载得有点多了，开头第一句的表达就不是很顺。所以可以拆开两句哈，先说他提议什么，然后他基于什么证据，虽然有点模式化，但至少不会有问题]. However the author’s argument is lack of contrast and therefore is unconvincing as it stands. [这句话揉在一起了，建议改作 However, the argument do not provide enough information about the comparison of Ez and ABC. Therefore, it is not convincing as it stands.]

Firstly, the argument assumes that after EZ Disposal’s adding trucks, the total number of EZ’s truck will [be] more than that of ABC [more than ABC’s]. Whereas there is no evidence that shows[shows that] the ABC company will not add its trucks [order more trucks] considering EZ’s addition. Without this consideration [without this information], the author’s conclusion is deficient in logic [不知道有没有in logic这种说法……而且这好象不是没有逻辑的问题，只是没有可信度，所以可以改成the conclusion is unconvincing，这种普通的词到处用都不会错哈]. Perhaps, in order to be more competitive, ABC will increase its truck number after EZ’s enhancement [这句话和上句话是一个意思，可以合在一起]. Thus it’s hard to say which company will have the bigger number of trucks [直接说more trucks好了，不用总把number带着].

Secondly, as mentioned, 80% of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s service, nevertheless we do not know how many people are involved in [建议使用participate in,involve in 有点别扭]] this survey and what the percentage of the respondents in all informants is [这句话的意思可以表达得更简单一些，and how many residents responded to the survey]. If there are only approximately [about]100 people participating in the investigation and only a small part respond to the investigation, the survey has no persuasion [is unpersuasive]. To make this survey more persuasive [to improve the survey], the author must illustrate[这是举例说明的意思，不妥] the participant number is big and most people offer feedbacks.

Thirdly, the author does not mention what is the percentage of people who are satisfied with ABC’s service while suggests 80% of respondents approve EZ’s service is satisfying [这里有个逻辑错误，就是该地区没有使用过ABC，所以谈不上满意还是不满意，所以我的说法是不一定居民不愿意尝试，仅供参考哈]. We recede[让步：concede] that the 80% is convincing [这里有点不严密，刚刚才反驳过关于respond的问题,所以建议改成“即使大部分居民满意……], however, we can not conclude that people are more approving with the EZ’s serving. Maybe there are more people well-pleasing with the EZ’s service, so[前后没有因果] we can not conclude from the insufficient fact that EZ gives better service [这里有歧义，fact that 还是conclude that]. In order to make its demonstration much stronger, the argument should prove the less people are approving of ABC’s service than of EZ’s.

In sum, the argument makes the conclusion from the unilateral analysis, thus lacks persuasion. In order to make this argument more persuasive, the author should add [supply the evidence that] what ABC will do after EZ’s addition of trucks, as well, mention the population involved in the survey and percentage of participants responding to the survey [这里可以改成提供一个更有代表性和说服力的调查结果，光提供这个有问题的调查的数据也解决不了问题哈], and demonstrate there are not so many people approving of ABC’s service than EZ’s.

整体看下来的感觉就是组长的表达流畅性还需要加强哈，特别是对句子的把握，另外语法也要多加注意。还有一些词语，没有把握的使用要避免。有些意思如果在一句话里表达不清楚的话，情愿换成简单句来说。多看看范文，吸取别人的长处哈。

结构上，几个重要的逻辑错误点找到了，但是有几个小的错误有所遗漏，我认为，要力图在讲大错误的时候也一起把小错误带进去说掉，又让人感觉一段里说的主题是一个。也就是要注意一下对错误有逻辑地进行归类整理，再放到三至四段当中去。

所以把别人的分析帖在这里哈，咱们大家一起看看自己漏掉了什么，想想怎样用最有组织的结构来尽可能多地包含这些毛病：

•论断的前提非常不公平，他认为A不能提供像E一样让人满意的服务，却没有给出足够的证据。除了提到A公司每周收一次垃圾外，论断没有提供任何有关A公司的服务纪录，比如信用问题、采用何种技术等等。而该城在过去10年里一直用的E，市民包括论者很可能都缺乏对A的了解。这样在E提高了服务费用的前提下，论者没有理由不让市民尝试使用较便宜的A。

•论断使用的论据不并具说力。论者说E每周收两次，而A只有一次。但是有没有可能每周一次就已经足够了？两次有必要吗？论断都没有提供这方面的资料。我们没能排除每周两次的服务是多余的，虽然这多出的50%的服务只多收了25%的费用，但对于市民来说都是一种浪费。另外论断说E最近新添了卡车，还会提供更多的服务。但这两者之间却没有明显的因果关系。首先论断没有提供证据新卡车一定用于该市的垃圾处理，我们就不能排除这有可能是A公司新扩展了业务，比如为另一个城市服务，这样论者所说的更多的服务就不可能实现。再有就是是否需要的问题，如果说现有的已经多余了，再添新的更多余。有关论据中提到的调查也很有疑点，首先论据没有提供资料调查采取了任何措施以保证调查样本具有代表性，我们不排除有可能对E满意的人才接受了调查，或是寄回调查问卷，而且调查也没有显示人们愿意为这种满意再多支付25%的费用。

•论断认为E更好所以还要用E，结论做得太草率。论断甚至没有告诉我们E为什么突然要提价，价格是否合理。我们不排除十年的合同使E没有受到竞争的压力才导致提价。另外政府的财政状况也是决定是否接受这多出来的50%的费用的关键，对此论断也没有提供资料。我们不排除政府也需要还有其他更紧迫的事情需要花钱，因而不能接受提价。

结论：论断要求市府接受高价的垃圾处理服务非常没有道理也很不公平。如果要进一步说服大家的话，论者还需要了解E公司提价的原因，以及未来所能提供的服务。另外市民的需求以及市府的财情况也需要了解。