[a习作temp] 0910AW 个人习作之 Argument11 By GA-ROW hdxhz [复制链接]

hdxhz
UID: 2656940

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 1
寄托币: 604
注册时间: 2009-6-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-20 12:20:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 hdxhz 于 2009-7-20 14:19 编辑

TOPIC: ARGUMENT11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
WORDS: 456
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/7/19 21:23:17

Merely based on the doubled recycling of aluminum and paper, and the dubious further increase in recycling and a recent survey, the author concludes without foundation that the residents are strongly engaged to recycling. Further he suggests that the landfill should last longer than predicted. However, the argument suffers from several flaws serving to undermine the conclusion and the suggestion.

To start with, the conclusion of the residents' strong commitment to recycling is not guaranteed. Each of the three evidences provided actually lends little credulity to the commitment. First, the doubled recycling of aluminum and paper lend little credulity to the commitment. The condition of recycling of aluminum and paper in previous years may be quite a small amount, and the even doubled amount may be still of little significance. Even granted that the amount of recycling of the two matters is quite considerable, the arguer fails to offer information concerning other garbage such as fruit peels and others. It is totally likely there are governmental policies about the recycling of the two matters, which caused the increase of the amount. However, whether the residents pay enough attention to other garbage is unknown-- maybe the recycling of fruit peels decreased in these years. Thus it is hasty to deduce the strong commitment.

Second, that the increase of charges for garbage pickup will lead to the further increase is also unwarranted. After all, the ability of the residents to recycle is limited. If the amount of the recycling is already nearly maxmized, it would have little room to rise further. Besides, it is possible that the garbage pickup corporation is paid by the government, rather than directly by the residents. So the residents may not further increase the recycling to reduce the cost of garbage pickup.

Third, the survey can lend few evidences to the strong commitment. As the result indicates that the respondents would do more recycling, however, such a promise is never guaranteed. Whether they will do more recycling mostly rely on the convenience and benefits brought about, as well as government policies. They may fail to do more recycling due to the increasing cost of the recycling in the future.

Moreover, even granted that people have strong commitment to recycling, it is not thorough to conclude that the landfill should last longer than predicted. First, very likely is that even people recycle more garbage, the total amount of garbage, including the recycled and the not recycled, increase too much to offset the decrease of the recycled amount. Second, the arguer fails to offer information about the prediction. It is entirely possible that the commitment of the recycling was precisely predicted.

To sum up, the argument suffers from several flaws to be sound and thorough. To make the argument more invulnerable, the author should offer more information about the total amount of garbage, both these recycled and these that cannot be recycled. Moreover, the details concerning the prediction should also be provided to make the conclusion more reasonable.

反而A写的不是那么顺畅了。。。有些原因找的不好！

回应
0

使用道具举报

zhy871029
UID: 2497340

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 947
注册时间: 2008-5-24
精华: 0
帖子: 5

沙发

发表于 2009-7-22 18:33:13 |只看该作者

Merely basedon the doubled recycling of aluminum and paper, and the dubious furtherincrease in recycling and a recent survey, the author concludes withoutfoundation that the residents are strongly engaged to recycling.Further（Furthermore) he suggests that the landfill should last longer thanpredicted. However, the argument suffers from several flaws serving toundermine the conclusion and the suggestion.

To startwith, the conclusion of the residents' strong commitment to recyclingis not guaranteed. Each of the three evidences provided actually lendslittle credulity to the commitment. First, the doubled recycling ofaluminum and paper lend little credulity to the commitment. Thecondition of recycling of aluminum and paper in previous years may bequite a small amount, and the even doubled amount may be still oflittle significance. Even granted that the amount of recycling of thetwo matters is quite considerable, the arguer fails to offerinformation concerning other garbage such as fruit peels and others. Itis totally likely there are governmental policies about the recyclingof the two matters, which caused the increase of the amount. However,whether the residents pay enough attention to other garbage isunknown-- maybe the recycling of fruit peels decreased in these years.Thus it is hasty to deduce the strong commitment.

Second, thatthe increase of charges for garbage pickup will lead to the furtherincrease is also unwarranted. After all, the ability of the residentsto recycle is limited. If the amount of the recycling is already nearlymaxmized, it would have little room to rise further. Besides, it ispossible that the garbage pickup corporation is paid by the government,rather than directly by the residents. So the residents may not furtherincrease the recycling to reduce the cost of garbage pickup. (再补充一点，如果他回收费用相对居民收入很低的话，也有可能会增加垃圾)

Third, thesurvey can lend few evidences to the strong commitment. As the resultindicates that the respondents would do more recycling, however, such apromise is never guaranteed. Whether they will do more recycling mostlyrely on the convenience and benefits brought about, as well asgovernment policies. They may fail to do more recycling due to theincreasing cost of the recycling in the future.

Moreover,even granted that people have strong commitment to recycling, it is notthorough to conclude that the landfill should last longer thanpredicted. First, very likely is that even people recycle more garbage,the total amount of garbage, including the recycled and the notrecycled, increase too much to offset the decrease of the recycledamount. Second, the arguer fails to offer information about theprediction. It is entirely possible that the commitment of therecycling was precisely predicted.

To sum up,the argument suffers from several flaws to be sound and thorough. Tomake the argument more invulnerable, the author should offer moreinformation about the total amount of garbage, both these recycled andthese that cannot be recycled. Moreover, the details concerning theprediction should also be provided to make the conclusion morereasonable.

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

hdxhz
UID: 2656940

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 1
寄托币: 604
注册时间: 2009-6-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2009-7-25 22:36:54 |只看该作者

Merely basedon the doubled recycling of aluminum and paper, and the dubious furtherincrease in recycling and a recent survey, the author concludes withoutfoundation that the residents are strongly engaged to recycling.Further（Furthermore) he suggests that the landfill should last longer thanpredicted. However, the argument suffers from several flaws serving toundermine the conclusion and the suggestion.

To startwith, the conclusion of the residents' strong commitment to recyclingis not guaranteed. Each of the three evidences provided actually lendslittle credulity to the commitment. First, the doubled recycling ofaluminum and paper lend little credulity to the commitment. Thecondition of recycling of aluminum and paper in previous years may bequite a small amount, and the even doubled amount may be still oflittle significance. Even granted that the amount of recycling of thetwo matters is quite considerable, the arguer fails to offerinformation concerning other garbage such as fruit peels and others. Itis totally likely there are governmental policies about the recyclingof the two matters, which caused the increase of the amount. However,whether the residents pay enough attention to other garbage isunknown-- maybe the recycling of fruit peels decreased in these years.Thus it is hasty to deduce the strong commitment.

Second, thatthe increase of charges for garbage pickup will lead to the furtherincrease is also unwarranted. After all, the ability of the residentsto recycle is limited. If the amount of the recycling is already nearlymaxmized, it would have little room to rise further. Besides, if the cost of collection is negilible compared with the imcome of the average family, perhaps they would care little about the increase of price and therefore the increasing recycling is unwarrented. (再补充一点，如果他回收费用相对居民收入很低的话，也有可能会增加垃圾)

Third, thesurvey can lend few evidences to the strong commitment. As the resultindicates that the respondents would do more recycling, however, such apromise is never guaranteed. Whether they will do more recycling mostlyrely on the convenience and benefits brought about, as well asgovernment policies. They may fail to do more recycling due to theincreasing cost of the recycling in the future.

Moreover,even granted that people have strong commitment to recycling, it is notthorough to conclude that the landfill should last longer thanpredicted. First, very likely is that even people recycle more garbage,the total amount of garbage, including the recycled and the notrecycled, increase too much to offset the decrease of the recycledamount. Second, the arguer fails to offer information about theprediction. It is entirely possible that the commitment of therecycling was precisely predicted.

To sum up,the argument suffers from several flaws to be sound and thorough. Tomake the argument more invulnerable, the author should offer moreinformation about the total amount of garbage, both these recycled andthese that cannot be recycled. Moreover, the details concerning theprediction should also be provided to make the conclusion morereasonable. 2# zhy871029