argument 17(高频) by dayanxiayeh,欢迎大家拍拍我 有排必回

dayanxiayehUID: 2758697

17.17.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."

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。


提纲
1，EZ每周两次未必就比ABC做得更好，有可能每次只收一半，又或者垃圾清理并不需要一周两次。
2，新车不一定是用于收垃圾的，即使是也不一定是用于WG的，即使用于WG也不一定需要更多的车，即使需要更多的车好处也未必能弥补费用。
3，survey问题，（1）没有给出确切数字
      （2）去年的survey不能代表过去10年的表现，也不能代表居民现在的满意程度
         (3)有可能满意者才response the survey
字数：570        时间：一下午

In this argument, the author concludes that even though EZ raised its price, the local government should keep on contracting with EZ, rather than switch to contract with ABC.To support his conclusion, the author points out that EZ collects rubbish twice a week,but ABC only does once a week.In addition he infers that EZ has equal trucks to ABC,however EZ has ordered new trucks.Furthermore the arguer mentions that there is a survey made in last year, shows that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance.However these alone do not constitute a logical argument in favor of its conclusion, and fail to provide convincing supports making this argument sound and invulnerable.

The threshold problem with this argument is that under an unwarranted assumption that EZ does a better job than ABC by collecting rubbish twice a week, author draw a conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council should keep on contracting with EZ. However z
there is no evidence prove that it is necessary to collect rubbish twice a week, maybe collecting rubbish once a week is pretty enough, and one more times of collecting rubbish just increase the cost for rubbish collecting.

Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that the author falsely assumes that the additional ordered trucks will bing EZ a better collecting job. However there is no evidence provided to show that the new trucks are used to collect the rubbish, maybe they are in some other fields. Even if they are for rubbish collecting,it does not mean that the new trucks are going to be used for WG, it is possible that EZ broad its business area,so that they equip new trucks for some other towns. Even they are used for WG's rubbish collecting,it is still a problem that the profit new trucks make,will not overweight the cost of new trucks such as the gas cost and repair cost which will be paid by the residents of WG finally.

Before I come to my conclusion,it is necessary to point out the last flaw involved in this argument, that there is a serious of survey problems.Firstly,unless the surveyor sampled a sufficient number of residents of GW, and did so randomly across the entire spectrum, the survey result will not be reliable to gauge if the residents of GW are satisfied with EZ last year.
For example, if the survey sample only include 1000 people,the result would no doubt suggest only 800 residents have agreed with that they are satisfied with EZ, or if the grosses are considerable, even 1000 dissatisfied residents would account only a little percentage, which would render the survey meaningless.Secondly,the author does not provide how many percentage does the respondents count from the whole people receive the survey.Maybe only residents who are satisfied with EZ trend to response the survey, which will make the survey could not reflect the thoughts of the residents of WG fairly. Thirdly, the survey made in last year does not represent the attitudes of residents now, of show that the residents of WG are satisfied with EZ's performance in last ten years.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer have to provide more information about the situation of rubbish collection of GW, Additionally, he should rule out other possible uses of the new trucks.Furthermore,the arguer would have to prove that the survey is fair and reliable.  

落雪飞花2008UID: 2579536

本帖最后由 dayanxiayeh 于 2010-2-6 18:42 编辑 17.17.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." 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。 提纲 1，EZ每周两次未必就比ABC做得更好，有可能每次只收一半，又或者垃圾清理并不需要一周两次。 2，新车不一定是用于收垃圾的，即使是也不一定是用于WG的，即使用于WG也不一定需要更多的车，即使需要更多的车好处也未必能弥补费用。 3，survey问题，（1）没有给出确切数字       （2）去年的survey不能代表过去10年的表现，也不能代表居民现在的满意程度          (3)有可能满意者才response the survey 字数：570        时间：一下午 In this argument, the author concludes that even though EZ raised its price, the local government should keep on contracting with EZ, rather than switching to contract with ABC.To support his conclusion, the author points out that EZ collects rubbish twice a week,but ABC only does once a week.In addition he infers that EZ has equal trucks to ABC,however EZ has ordered new trucks.Furthermore, the arguer mentions that there is a survey made in last year, shows that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance.However these alone do not constitute a logical argument in favor of its conclusion, and fail to provide convincing supports making this argument sound and invulnerable. The threshold problem with this argument is that under an unwarranted assumption that EZ does a better job than ABC by collecting rubbish twice a week, author draw a conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council should keep on contracting with EZ. However， there is no evidence to prove that it is necessary to collect rubbish twice a week, maybe collecting rubbish once a week is pretty enough, and one more times of collecting rubbish just increase the cost for rubbish collecting. Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that the author falsely assumes that the additional ordered trucks will bing EZ a better collecting job. However there is no evidence provided to show that the new trucks are used to collect the rubbish, maybe they are in some other fields. Even if they are for rubbish collecting,it does not mean that the new trucks are going to be used for WG, it is possible that EZ broadens its business area,so that they equip new trucks for some other towns. Even they are used for WG's rubbish collecting,it is still a problem that 改成if比较合理 the profit new trucks make,will not overweight 用offset较好the cost of new trucks such as the gas cost and repair cost which will be paid by the residents of WG finally.此段论述很好，层层递进，有杀伤力。呵呵 Before I come to my conclusion,it is necessary to point out the last flaw involved in this argument, that there is a serious of survey problems.Firstly,unless the surveyor sampled a sufficient number of residents of GW, and did so randomly across the entire spectrum, the survey result will not be reliable to gauge if改成whether比较好 the residents of GW are satisfied with EZ last year. For example, if the survey sample only include 1000 people,the result would no doubt suggest only 800 residents have agreed with that they are satisfied with EZ, or if the grosses are considerable, even 1000 dissatisfied residents would account only a little percentage, which would render the survey meaningless.Secondly,the author does not provide how many percentage does the respondents count from the whole people receive(receiving) the survey.Maybe only residents who are satisfied with EZ trend to responserespond the survey, which will make the survey could not reflect the thoughts of the residents of WG fairly. Thirdly, the survey made in last year does not represent the attitudes of residents now, of showing that the residents of WG are satisfied with EZ's performance in last ten years.第三点可以说既然是去年的情况。就不能表明居民在提升收费后的想法。 As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer have to provide more information about the situation of rubbish collection of GW, Additionally, he should rule out other possible uses of the new trucks.Furthermore,the arguer would have to prove that the survey is fair and reliable.   作者的整体想法和范文基本上差不多，所以我也没法挑出多少逻辑错误。关于这一方面，我给楼主找个帖子看看，您请仅供参考，呵呵。行文也很好，措辞得当,有少数错误还要更正。学习了。 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=416323&highlight= https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=800418&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D512 因为前两天没能上网，所以楼主的没能及时回复，不好意思啊。

1# dayanxiayeh

dayanxiayehUID: 2758697

2# 落雪飞花2008 你推荐的帖子太有用啦！雪中送炭啊！我写这篇ar的时候鄙视自己鄙视的不行，尤其是攻击一周运两次比一周运一次好的时候，感觉自己的良心都坏掉了。还有自我批评一下关于survey是去年这一点实在不应该批评，鸡蛋里挑骨头啊！总之非常感谢！改的也有道理