Argument 开头一句话行不行？请进！内有例子

elvis_xuUID: 181081

如题，这篇ARGUMENT17，充分本着开头简短和不重复的原则，
抛开其他部分不说，俺开头段就写了1句话！（红色部分），请大家看看，这样的开头行不行？？？
谢谢了！

-------------------------------
Argument17，
17The 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."
1，survey错误，很可能只有去年EZ的工作让人满意，或者，这些回应者更多的倾向于给EZ好评，是EZ主持的调查。调查对于百姓的生活没有帮助，这个exceptional service没有用。(respondents, 人口总数,EZ主持的调查，调查没有对居民有直接的益处 )
2，作者是在向我们传送一个思想：多出来的$500收的有道理。并不能说EZ每周收两次垃圾就好，并不能说他的服务好，可能我们没有那么多的垃圾，并不需要每周两次。作者只是单单从收垃圾的次数上评价两家公司的服务好坏，可能作者忽视了其他方面。可能ABC收垃圾更准时，漏掉的几率更小。
3，EZ准备添卡车，并不说明着卡车对提高EZ的工作效率有帮助，可能EZ同时承包了别的城市的工作，这卡车不是用来给本市运垃圾的。也可能说明了一个效率的问题，ABC比EZ的卡车少，但干同样的工作，所以ABC效率更高，少的车，少的人，能完成一样的工作，所以需要更少的钱。
----------------

I disagree with the author’s conclusion which is based on the comparison between EZ and ABC Disposal companies. (这年头大家都说开头不要RESTATE，还要简短，不知道一句的行不？)
-
In evaluation of the survey the author cites, we can find that the survey was conducted by EZ Disposal as an additional service. Thus the survey’s reliability is dubious. Conmen sense tells us that if the host is involved in the survey, the survey is hardly perspective. Perhaps, for making the survey more smoother, they provide tiny gifts for respondents, and finally influence the respondents view. It is possible that ABC hires another survey agency for collecting feedbacks. It is also possible that citizens who are not satisfied with EZ’s service did not respond to the survey. The author did not provide us how many people exactly involved in the survey and the WG’s citizen numbers.
-
The writer is sending us a message that EZ increases its cost by 500$ in reason. The service quality can not be judged merely by times of collection. The author forgot the possibility that WG citizen numbers are not so large that there was no need to collect twice a week and one time was pretty enough. Perhaps, compared to ABC, EZ’s two times a week police just shows its low efficiency and waste of human resources. What is more, the author did not mention the service qualities for each other. Perhaps, compared to EZ, ABC collects trash completely on time as its schedule and ABC’s loss rate is much lower than EZ. Thus people can dump trash regularly.
-
Another evidence that the author cites is that EZ purchased additional trucks for its fleet. However, the writer fails to explain us whether these additional trucks are for WG town trash collection. Perhaps, EZ are in charge of other town’s trash collection or construction project and EZ is in short of transportation trucks. Or perhaps, for WG town’s trash collection contract, 20 trucks are more than enough. Then, what are these additional trucks used for? Even if the above assumptions are true, we cannot neglect the possibility that compared to ABC, EZ ordered more trucks because its low efficiency and in order not to lose the contract, EZ has to purchase additional trucks. Thus, we are clear that if we choose EZ, our 500$ will be used to pay for the additional trucks, additional cost of fuel and salary for hiring additional drivers.
-
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. For better evaluation, we must need to know more details about the survey that the author cites. And we also need to know the chief reason why EZ increase its cost after 10 years of contract with WG town.

keenex_l_yUID: 2237805

Just beginning? If true, it's fine.

expire7UID: 2160574

我觉得可以三。无所谓

nostrumUID: 2124189

我觉得可以，没什么问题

suremanUID: 2303461

In evaluation of the survey the author cites, we can find that the survey was conducted by EZ Disposal as an additional service.

这句话似乎不妥，因为文中没有任何evidence表示该survey是由EZ来host的，只是指出该survey表示EZ的服务很exceptional.应该攻击该survey是由于没有可对比的对象，对唯一一个候选人的评价而已。

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

不要用I