Argument 11, 垃圾处理，请拍~~

小黄瓜的解夏UID: 2567767

The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years.（背景） During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
words:659 用时一小时


以下是全文
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the available space in the landfill could last for considerably longer than previously predicted, because of the local residents’ strong commitment to recycling. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites a series of evidence including the increased amount of recycled aluminum and paper, the fact that charges for garbage pick up will double next month, and the result of recent survey showing that respondents will do more recycling in the future. However, I find this argument weak, with several critical flaws.

To begin with, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization by citing the increased recycling of aluminum and paper to prove that the total amount recycling of garbage has inevitably increased. It is entirely possible that the residents only have willingness to recycle these to materials due to their willingness to save money. If so, maybe they would not like to recycle other kinds of garbage which are cheap and unsuitable for reuse. For that matter, without providing more information about residents’ recycling of other materials, the arguer could not substantiate the residents’ thorough commitment of recycling.

In addition, the arguer unnecessarily establishes a causal relationship between the increased charges for garbage pick up and the increased amount of recycling. This causal relationship is based on the assumption that the residents’ would not like to pay relatively high fee for garbage pick up. However, we could not find sufficient and concrete evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is entirely possible that they tend to accept the doubled charges because it is still very low, or even if the doubled charge is too high, they have to choose garbage pick up because busy work makes them have no time to do recycling. If so, the amount of recycling will not increase. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, I could not accept assertion that the increased charges will lead to further increase of recycling.

Moreover, whether the result of survey cited by the arguer could demonstrate the commitment of local residents is open to doubt. For one thing, common sense informs me that the respondents' actual behaviors are not always in strict accordance with their answers in the survey. Perhaps they are not entirely forthright in the survey, or perhaps they agree that recycling is important, but fails to take it as a habitual behavior. For another, the arguer fails to prove that the respondents' answers could accurately reflect opinions of the whole general group. It is entirely possible that only a few of residents involves in the survey, and other residents do not hold the same attitude towards the recycling as the respondents do. In short, without ruling out all above-mentioned possibilities, the author’s assumption remains untenable and unconvincing.


Last but not least, even assuming that the arguer could substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, and concludes that the residents’ commitment to recycling is strong enough now, the causal relationship between the residents' commitment and the availability of space in landfill is still unconvincing. Other factors could also result in a completely filled landfill. Will the population in this area increase significantly in future? If so, although the current residents’ would like to recycle, the total amount of garbage will still increase a lot. The arguer also unfairly ignores other kinds of garbage except household waste, such as industrial refuse. Perhaps some factories will be established in this area in the future, and the landfill will be full of a large amount of industrial refuse very soon. In that case, even the previous prediction should be reconsidered, not to mention the arguer’s conclusion.

To sum up, the argument made lacks credibility as its stands. To strengthen the assumption that the residents have strong commitment to recycle, the author ought to provide more concrete and sufficient evidence. To solidify the prediction as a result of residents’ commitment, we need further information to rule out other possible situations which may disprove it.


自己觉得有一些问题但是不知道怎么解决：
1 看过一些板油对时态的讨论，仍然不得要领，所以就按照一般时态来的，不知道可以不可以，如果不行，具体哪里有时态错误能告诉我一下吗？谢谢
2 字数觉得太多了考试的时候限时不一定能写完，可能自己废话比较多吧，而且不知道如何取舍重要错误和次要错误，总觉得每个都很重要，，，关于语言精简有什么好的意见和建议吗？谢谢
3 其他方面肯定还有好多不足没有意识到，请大家拍，谢谢

mianfeidewucanUID: 2705713

可以用一般时态的。张雷东还推荐用那个。

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

原文逻辑思路分析：
1.
过去两年城镇居民对铝和纸的回收量是前几年的两倍。
2.
charges for garbage pickup will double→下个月回收量会更大
3.
超过90%的一个recent survey的回答者说他们以后会做更多回收工作。
由1，2，3→landfill的available space会比预期持续时间更长

逻辑错误攻击点分析：
1.
铝和纸的回收量增加了不代表landfill的available space会比预期持续时间长。第一，可能垃圾的数量是以前的两倍甚至更多，那么回收量增多并不会使landfill的available space更多；第二，铝和纸可能只占所有垃圾总数的一小部分，对所有垃圾回收量几乎没有影响。
2.
垃圾的charge升高不代表下个月回收量就会增大。第一，可能本来就只有这么多垃圾能回收，想多也多不了了；第二，可能回收的成本比较大，而charge只提高了一点点，即使charge提高了，也不会增加回收量。
3.
Recent survey的问题。第一，survey的可信度。第二，说是一回事，做是另一回事。

以下是全文
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the available space in the landfill could last for considerably longer than previously predicted, because of the local residents’ strong commitment to recycling. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites a series of evidence including the increased amount of recycled aluminum and paper, the fact that charges for garbage pick up will double next month, and the result of recent survey showing that respondents will do more recycling in the future. However, I find this argument weak, with several critical flaws.（尽量不用第一人称）
第一段总体可以，可能就是不够简洁，对原文重复过多，关于Argument首段的写法建议去看一下666版主的argument开头那篇帖子。
To begin with, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization by citing the increased recycling of aluminum and paper to prove that the total amount recycling of garbage has inevitably increased（这句TS写的不错）. It is entirely possible that the residents only have willingness to recycle these to materials due to their willingness to save money. If so, maybe they would not like to recycle other kinds of garbage which are cheap and unsuitable for reuse. （这里论证过程得出结论似乎太快了。你现在的论证思路是：居民为了钱只回收Al和paper而不回收其他的，所以整体的回收量不一定上升。那么，如果Al和paper占到垃圾的绝大部分呢？增加了Al和paper不就相当于增加了垃圾的总体回收量吗？这里关键要指出Al和paper在总体垃圾中所占的比例，参看我上面的分析）For that matter, without providing more information about residents’ recycling of other materials, the arguer could not substantiate the residents’ thorough commitment of recycling.

In addition, the arguer unnecessarily establishes a causal relationship between the increased charges for garbage pick up and the increased amount of recycling.（TS写的不错）（下面的论证过程不对了，你对charge for garbage pick-up的理解有误，这个charge是指捡垃圾那些人捡了垃圾去回收得到的收入，这个charge提高了，可能导致他们有更高的积极性去捡垃圾，所以可能会导致垃圾回收量的增加） This causal relationship is based on the assumption that the residents’ would not like to pay relatively high fee for garbage pick up. However, we could not find sufficient and concrete evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is entirely possible that they tend to accept the doubled charges because it is still very low, or even if the doubled charge is too high, they have to choose garbage pick up because busy work makes them have no time to do recycling. If so, the amount of recycling will not increase. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, I could not accept assertion that the increased charges will lead to further increase of recycling.

Moreover, whether the result of survey cited by the arguer could demonstrate the commitment of local residents is open to doubt.（TS很清晰，直接指出逻辑错误） For one thing, common sense informs me（少用第一人称）
that the respondents' actual behaviors are not always in strict accordance with their answers in the survey. Perhaps they are not entirely forthright in the survey, or perhaps they agree that recycling is important, but fails to take it as a habitual behavior. For another, the arguer fails to prove that the respondents' answers could accurately reflect opinions of the whole general group. It is entirely possible that only a few of residents involves in the survey, and other residents do not hold the same attitude towards the recycling as the respondents do. In short, without ruling out all above-mentioned possibilities, the author’s assumption remains untenable and unconvincing.


Last but not least, even assuming that the arguer could substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, and concludes that the residents’ commitment to recycling is strong enough now, the causal relationship between the residents' commitment and the availability of space in landfill is still unconvincing. Other factors could also result in a completely filled landfill. Will the population in this area increase significantly in future? If so, although the current residents’ would like to recycle, the total amount of garbage will still increase a lot. The arguer also unfairly ignores other kinds of garbage except household waste, such as industrial refuse. Perhaps some factories will be established in this area in the future, and the landfill will be full of a large amount of industrial refuse very soon. In that case, even the previous prediction should be reconsidered, not to mention the arguer’s conclusion.

To sum up, the argument made lacks credibility as its stands. To strengthen the assumption that the residents have strong commitment to recycle, the author ought to provide more concrete and sufficient evidence. To solidify the prediction as a result of residents’ commitment, we need further information to rule out other possible situations which may disprove it.

1. 时态整体用一般现在时就OK~
2. 一般Argu写500字以上够了，只有30分钟，时间非常紧张，所以把逻辑错误找出来说清楚就好。这篇文章个人认为前三点比较重要，第四点来不及可以不写。
3. 为了在考场上争取最多的时间来写A，你必须在考前至少过两遍以上A的题库，确保在考场上用1分钟时间就能迅速找到逻辑错误并理清思路，争取最多时间进行论证，多进行限时训练，提高常用句型的熟练程度。