Argument 17.收垃圾公司的选择~ 球拍~欢迎互拍~ 有拍必回!

℃ЙαиgUID: 2750369

欢迎大家留下链接~ 有拍必回!~




17.
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut 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."


Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。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只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

In this letter, the author recommends that the Walnut Grove should continue to use EZ which has provieded trash-collection service there for 10 years,  rather than ABC Waste. To substantiate this argument, the author cites that EZ collects trash twice a week which is more frequently than ABC  despite it requires more $500 per month, and  EZ has made an additional order on condition that both companies have the same munber of trucks. The author also points out that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. Careful scrutiny of this argument, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the author’s claim.


The mayor problem with this argument is that EZ collects trash twice a week accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation that the Walnut Grove’s town should continue to sign the contract with EZ disposal. It is entirely possible that the residents here are totally satisfied with the frequency that collecting trash once a week and both EZ disposal and ABC can meet this requirement. Maybe the residents refuse to pay extra money for  another collection which is regarded as unecessary. Thus, lacking evidence that residents in Walnut Grove’s town require that trash should be collected twice a week and they are willing to pay more money for that service, the argument’s claim that we should choose EZ rather than ABC is dubious.


Another problem with this argument is that EZ’s order for additional trucks hardly suffices to prove that EZ will provide a higher quality service for Walnut Grove’s town. The author overlooks a myriad of reasons for EZ to order additional trucks, perhaps these trucks are prepare for its new customer rather than Walnut Grove. Furthermore the author provides no evidence that more trucks will improve a company’s service quality. Maybe ABC can provide better service with 20 trucks than EZ with an additional order of trucks. Given these possible scenarios, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks proves nothing about renewing the contract.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw appeared in the argument. The author provides no evidence that the survey’s respondents are representative of the overall group of residents in Walnut Grove’s town. Even if the survey is statistically reliable and the residents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year, the author assumes further that residents there will continue to be satisfied with EZ in years to come. But the letter contains no evidence to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that the residents will be more satisfied with ABC Waste in the future. Thus, without better evidence that people in Walnut Grove's town prefer EZ to ABC, the editorial remains unconvincing.


In conclusion, the recommendation for renewing the contract with EZ is not well supported. To convince me that EZ is a better choice, the author must provide clear statistical evidence that resident in Walnut Grove’s town will be more satisfied with EZ rather than ABC. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need more information about the service quality of the two companies.

Lisa-yuanUID: 2748489

Another problem with this argument is that EZ’s order for additional trucks hardly suffices to prove that EZ will provide a higher quality service for Walnut Grove’s town. The author overlooks a myriad of reasons for EZ to order additional trucks, perhaps these trucks are prepare for its new customer rather than Walnut Grove. Furthermore the author provides no evidence that more trucks will improve a company’s service quality. Maybe ABC can provide better service with 20 trucks than EZ with an additional order of trucks. Given these possible scenarios, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks proves nothing about renewing the contract.(最后一句语气比较绝对，用maybe的语气会比较好)

总结：总体来说，文章找的缺点很准确，也没有句法错误和语病。句式变换比较多，而且能用比较准确的词语。文章写得很不错~~

rodgoodUID: 2619326

文章写得真不错，拜读了两遍，呵呵~~