[a习作temp] argument17 [kb9.11] 第3次作业 [复制链接]

prophetluo
UID：2240098

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 241
注册时间: 2006-8-9
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-17 16:12:30 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The conclusion that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ seems at first glance to be a convince notion. To the support the conclusion ,the editor present an evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. In addition, another evidence that EZ which, like ABC ,currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks was showed to justify the notion .Finally, the editor claim his own point of view that EZ provides exceptional service according to the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance.
   In the first place, the argument simply equates the quantity  with quality of  weekly  trash collection .The commonsense teach us that to value one's achievements of his or her works , not only take quantity as the criterion, but also focus on the time they spent and the quality of the product. The evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, the editor just mentioned, seems to mislead the reader for those reason below. Firstly, the most important thing that the town hall concerned is the quality  of the trash collection. It is premature to ensure EZ is better than ABC until the editor provide more evidence to show the comparison of the trash collection result of the two companies. Secondly, If the workload of the two companies were the same ,therefore the efficiency of ABC is twice more than EZ and what one can image is that when confronting the precipitate incident ,the ABC can do a better job.
   In the second place, the editor appreciates who's strong commitment to something to some extent. The evidence that the EZ had ordered more trucks ,according to which it could not make any further prediction because of missing evidence. First of all, there is no more indication that EZ was truly plan to purchase some trucks ,moreover the order might be the camouflage of their calculated chicanery ,which would be canceled after the town hall chosen them. In addition, even if EZ will surely buy some trucks ,more evidence should be present in order to indicate the amount and the use of the new brought trucks. If EZ had ordered many trucks ,but just purchased only one trucks, the town hall and the residents of the town was all be cheated ,since the addition of one truck can bring little dominance to EZ. At the same time, if the trucks brought by EZ were not used for collecting, what the reader ensure is the editor misled us by this delusive evidence.
   In the third place, the result of the survey does not necessarily ensure that EZ provides exceptional service last year. Firstly, the statistical evidence of the survey upon which the argument relies is not statistical reliable ,because from the survey we find little sign of the such procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficiently large sample so as to be representative of the overall population of the Walnut Grove. In that case ,the survey should be questioned for two reasons :  one is that the amount of respondents is unknown ,another one is that whether the relationship between respondents and the employees of EZ  exist. Secondly, even if the respondents of the survey are random samples, there still was one problem should be clarify. The information that we attain from the survey merely make us clear that the respondents were satisfied with EZ ,however what we concerned is not only the response of the EZ. So, if 100 present of respondents were satisfied with ABC or  more than 80 present ones appreciated the job of ABC,I think the only company I would prefer to choose is ABC.
   To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.

[ 本帖最后由 prophetluo 于 2007-8-17 22:42 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

goldzinc
UID：2378390

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 301
注册时间: 2007-8-8
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2007-8-18 14:16:15 |只看该作者

The conclusion that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ seems at first glance to be a convince notion. To the support the conclusion,the editor presents evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. In addition, another evidence that EZ which, like ABC ,currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks was showed to justify the notion .Finally, the editor claim his own point of view that EZ provides exceptional service according to the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance.
（在第一段中应该指出作者的论证是错的，你是不是忘了写了）
   (据说不要空格)In the first place, the argument simply equates the quantity with quality(quality和quantity写反了) of weekly trash collection .The commonsense teach us that to value one's achievements of his or her(前面有ones 这里用his就行吧) works, (we should) not only take quantity as the criterion, but also focus on the time they spent and the quality of the product. The evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, (as) the editor just mentioned, seems to mislead the reader for those(these) reason below. Firstly, the most important thing that the town hall concerned is the quality of the trash collection. It is premature to ensure(ensure是确保的意思，这里用conclude吧) EZ is better than ABC until the editor provide more evidence to show the comparison of the trash collection result of the two companies. Secondly, If the workload of the two companies were the same,therefore the efficiency of ABC is twice more than EZ and what one(we) can image is that when confronting the precipitate incident,the ABC can do a better job.
（看起来感觉有点凌乱，因为句子之间的连接不是很紧密）
   In the second place, the editor appreciates who's(whose) strong commitment to something to some extent.(这是什么意思？) The evidence that the EZ had ordered more trucks,according to which it could not make any further prediction because of missing evidence.(这句话的语法有问题) First of all, there is no more indication that EZ was truly plan to purchase some trucks,moreover(不要用这个moreover这里不是递进关系) the order might be the camouflage of their calculated chicanery ,which would be canceled after the town hall chosen them. In addition, even if EZ will surely buy some trucks, more evidence should be present in order to indicate the amount and the use of the new brought trucks. If EZ had ordered many trucks,but just purchased only one truck, the town hall and the residents of the town was all be cheated, since the addition of one truck can bring little dominance to EZ. At the same time, if the trucks brought by EZ were not used for collecting, what the reader ensures is the editor misled us by this delusive evidence.(这个说的太严重的)
   In the third place, the result of the survey does not necessarily ensure that EZ provides exceptional service last year. Firstly, the statistical evidence of the survey upon which the argument relies is not statistical reliable, because from the survey we find little sign of the such procedures for sampling, thus(it worth) doubting whether the respondents constitute a sufficiently large sample so as to be representative of the overall population of the Walnut Grove. In that case, the survey should be questioned for two reasons: one is that the amount of respondents is unknown; another one is that whether the relationship between respondents and the employees of EZ exist. Secondly, even if the respondents of the survey are random samples, there still was one problem should be clarify. The information that we attain from the survey merely make us clear that the respondents were satisfied with EZ,however what we concerned is not only the response of the EZ. So, if 100 present of respondents were satisfied with ABC or more than 80 present ones appreciated the job of ABC,(or左右的是一个意思说一个就行了)I think the only company I would prefer to choose is ABC.

   To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.
（结尾太短了，再充实一点比较好。）

整体看写的还不错。有一个问题是每段中含义重复的句子太多了，既然字数写了这么多，那么这些句子可以减少一些。

Live bravely, love bravely.

使用道具举报