argument17 高频!欢迎拍砖!

oypUID: 2104471

argument17
限时未成,超20分钟. !!!
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."
WG的市委提议选择ABC, 而不是EZ(他市过去十年和WG签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构),因为最近他们把每月的收费从$2000提高到@2500. 但市委是错误的, 我们应该继续使用EZ.EZ每周收集两次垃圾,而ABC只收一次. 而且,EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20量, 但它订购了更多的车辆. 最后, EZ还提供优质的服务:去年市镇调查局的80%回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的.

Writing:
In this argument, the speaker recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken to advocate switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his conclusion, the author makes three comparisons: monthly fee for trash collection services, the collected-times per week, and the quality of services. At the basis of these comparisons, the speaker infers that EA has done better than ABC. However, close scrutiny reveal several logic flaws.

In the first place, the speaker unfairly assumes that the higher collected-times per week, the higher quality of services. However, the speaker provides no evidence to support it. The quality of trash collection services is determined by two factors, which are the collected-times per week and the quality of work. The also provides no information concerning which is more important. In sum, the speaker’s assumption is unreliable.

In addition, the speaker assumes EZ will present better services because of having ordered additional trucks. However, this fact lends little support to the author’s conclusion. The speaker provides no information concerning whether ABC has also ordered trucks. Perhaps the ABC has ordered additional trucks, which are more powerful than that of EZ. Even if the author substituted EZ has not ordered additional trucks, yet the speaker provides no evidence that the more trucks a company has, the higher service it presents. In the sum, committing several logic flaws, the speaker cannot convince me.

What is more, the speaker assumes EZ provides exceptional service, according to a study concerning residents’ attitude toward the performance of EZ. However, the speaker provides no information about to how the study was conducted, how many people was interviewed and so. So the statistical reliability of the study is invulnerable. Even if the EZ’s performance is simply good. Yet the speaker provides no message with regard to that of ABC. Perhaps the ABC’s performance is even better than EZ’s performance.
In sum, the study lends little support to the speaker’s conclusion.

To sum up, the speaker commits several flaws, which make the conclusion unreliable as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the speaker should provide more information about the performance of ABC, and whether the study is statistically reliable. Unless the speaker provides further evidence, I have reason to doubt the conclusion.
376

[ Last edited by oyp on 2005-8-11 at 21:09 ]

allendragoonUID: 2397245

In this argument, the speaker recommends(用holds更好，这似乎不是建议） that Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken to(commit a fallacy to似乎好一些，没查到有is mistaken to这种用法的) advocate switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his conclusion, the author makes three comparisons(建议用evidences，这实际上就是说最后一个是比较，但奇迹不一定): monthly fee for trash collection services, the collected-times per week, and the quality of services.(如用evidence后内容也要改一下) At(On) the basis of these comparisons, the speaker infers that EA has done better than ABC. However, close scrutiny reveal(s) several logic flaws.

In the first place, the speaker unfairly assumes that the higher collected-times per week, the higher quality of services(这里用比较级句式似乎不好，建议直接用... is indicative of...等句式). However, the speaker provides no evidence to support it. The quality of trash collection services is determined by two factors, (which are)(画蛇添足,同位语更好) the collected-times per week and the quality of work. The (author) also provides no information concerning which is more important. (这里用Moreover更好，另外可省去最后一句的重复) In sum, the speaker’s assumption is unreliable.

In addition, the speaker assumes EZ will present(疑似provide) better services because of having ordered additional trucks(动名词形式不舒服). However, this fact lends little support to the author’s conclusion. The speaker provides no information concerning whether ABC has also ordered trucks. Perhaps the ABC has ordered additional trucks, which are more powerful than that of EZ. Even if the author substituted(?这个词什么意思) EZ has not ordered additional trucks, yet the speaker provides no evidence that the more trucks a company has, the higher service it presents. In (the) sum, committing several logic flaws, the speaker cannot convince me.(比较Chinglish)

What is more, the speaker assumes EZ provides exceptional service, according to a study concerning residents’ attitude toward the performance of EZ. However, the speaker provides no information about to how the study was conducted, how many people was interviewed and so. So the statistical reliability of the study is invulnerable(vulnerable，致命错误). Even if the EZ’s performance is simply(?) good.(,) Yet the speaker provides no message with regard to that of ABC.(从这里能看出你前面说的comparison有问题了吧) Perhaps the ABC’s performance is even better than EZ’s performance. In sum, the study lends little support to the speaker’s conclusion.

To sum up, the speaker commits several flaws, which make the conclusion unreliable as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the speaker should provide more information about the performance of ABC, and whether the study is statistically reliable. (这些建议似乎不是针对主要问题就是EZ比ABC更适合) Unless the speaker provides further evidence, I have reason to doubt the conclusion.

总体看逻辑比较清晰，但lz似乎没有太用心准备和分析。多看看范文，多写一些，应该会较快提高的。