=七月流火=第四次作业a（快告别小组了。）

dongzhi428UID: 2556730

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 337
TIME: 00:35:00
DATE: 2009-8-25 16:44:52

The author of the argument claims that The Walnut Grove's town should continually use EZ rather than ABC for their trash collection services. To justify the conclusion the author points out that the EZ have one more time than ABC in collecting trash. In addition, he asserts that the EZ currently has a plan to buy more fleet of trucks. Furthermore, he indicates that 80 percent of respondents of last year's town survey said that they were satisfied with EZ. However, based on series unwarranted assumptions, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the argument depends on an assumption that collect trash twice a week is better than once a week, however; there is not enough evidence that the second collection is necessary. If once time is enough to move out the whole trash, which is produced in one week, we do not believe take other time was a reason of selecting the EZ

Moreover, the information reached in this argument is obviously so vague that we do not know nothing about the new fleet of trucks. Are those trucks for our town's business? Is not enough for collecting recently? Without those useful information, the unwarranted assumption that more trucks will lead more benefits is difficult to convinced.

Finally, the satisfied respondents are also not a case to be considered by the town council, because there is no comparability between the two companies. Only to be decided by one side seems unsubstantiated, admittedly; to make it more convincing, we need more data about how is the ABC's service. With less charge and unclearly data, we could not easily deny its ability of collecting the trash.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since the evidence is not reliable. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that whether the EZ company has better performance than ABC and the new fleet of trucks will make more effects. Otherwise, the argument is not conceiving enough to be accepted.

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

每段还要扩充，实在不行就举反例凑数
我觉得文章中间是不是不要太多问句啊，用强调句，等表达吧

开头我也看了，这是新东方推崇的开头，坦白说，新东方的2种开头我都不喜欢，现在这种太罗嗦，浪费时间，另外一种太楞，没有铺垫。我的那种吧，是中和了一下~~·KIKI的某个推荐文章里也用了这种开头，我觉得有一定道理。
因为重点论述内容在BODY段。开头写那么多，你看着时间过去，会不会慌乱~~影响后边的发挥呢？？

fredrichodieUID: 2612910

具体怎么扩充我拿QQ离线发过去了~
加油~

dongzhi428UID: 2556730

没办法了 开头已经背熟了 改不得了 就这样吧争取A能上4分。。。

主要这个开头能帮我旅顺一下思路。