【夏花绚烂】Argument17-by drm-33！！求猛拍！

drm-33UID: 2759202

希望各位大侠猛拍！！必会拍哈！！！


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, EZwhich, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 truckshas 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: 531          TIME: 00:35:00          DATE: 2010-4-1 17:46:52






The arguer makes the recommendation of continuing to use EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste to provide services for the local people, presenting that EZ provides more times services a week and has more additional trucks to be ordered; also, the arguer says EZ's performance is more satisfied according to a survey. The argument sounds cogent at first sight, but the arguer cannot convince us in several aspects unless more details to be showed.



The arguer proposed an assumption through a weak comparison and lack of sufficient information between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste. First, the arguer fails to mention the need for trash collection twice in a week for citizens in Walnut Grove's town, if, only once, like ABC, would be totally enough for the citizen's daily life. Then, the argument shows no evidence that EZ's additional trucks to have been ordered will be taken into use in this town, if, might be used in other towns that the local people cannot even benefit a little from this policy. Also, a trash company's reputation builds upon its charge as well as upon its service, quality, and confidence from its customers, if, we can only see information about trash collection times per week and a part of facilities in numbers, we can even assume that the arguer evades some crucial points like ABC Waste gets higher reputation and has better quality, but just has fewer marketing channels. Thus, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that EZ is better than ABC based just little information to be presented.



Further, the arguer mentions EZ's exceptional service receives good response from its last year's survey, which has several aspects to be corrected. The arguer fails to say that these respondents are the representatives of the local people, and also does not mention the numbers of the respondents, if, they are only a very small part of the people to be surveyed, that, these responses cannot even represent the whole survey. And, it would be more convincing if we can be told about the detailed design of the survey, like, if, in the survey, has some inclines in itself, the choices that were showed are "extremely satisfied",
"very satisfied",
"satisfied", how can we believe the "satisfied" responses are the best feedback we can get from our customers? The results are just misleading somehow, and cannot provide the real situation about its reputation in the local town. Moreover, it also lacks information if ABC Waste also did the survey and they got a higher remark. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer makes the conclusion too hastily and unwarranted.



Perhaps we cannot rule out the possibility that the town council advocates the proposal because of lacking in finance support and then chooses a cheaper one, which does nothing to do with EZ's performance compared with ABC Waste. OR even this argument is out of a supporter of EZ who can benefit a lot from this proposal. But, we just cannot simply accept the arguer's recommendation, which lacks
several crucial information in the comparison of two trash companies and invalid responses in the survey. If more information and details can be provided, the argument may seem more convincing.

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

The arguer makes the recommendation of continuing to use EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste to provide services for the local people, presenting that EZ provides more times services a week and has more additional trucks to be ordered; also, the arguer says EZ's performance is more satisfied according to a survey. The argument sounds cogent at first sight, but the arguer cannot convince us in several aspects unless more details to be showed.

The arguer proposed(可以直接用proposes) an assumption through a weak comparison and lack of sufficient information(weak comparison可以包含了lack information) between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste. First, the arguer fails to mention the need for trash collection twice in a week for citizens in Walnut Grove's town, if, only once, like ABC, would be totally enough for the citizen's daily life. Then, the argument shows no evidence that EZ's additional trucks to have been ordered will be taken into use in this town, if, (去掉，与might be 重复)might be used in other towns that the local people cannot even benefit a（应该是can..little吧，几乎不能） little from this policy. （这一句有些表面化，观点很好，就是不一定需要两次，那么就简单地说收集一次就足够了，因为居民没有那么多垃圾。但你跳过了这点，说居民很少受益，题目中并没有提到other towns，这句说来就比较令人费解）Also, a trash company's reputation builds upon its charge as well as upon its service, quality, and confidence from its customers, if,（这个词用的很频繁，但是不太恰当）
we can only see information about trash collection times per week and a part of facilities in numbers, we can even assume that the arguer evades some crucial points like ABC Waste gets higher reputation and has better quality, but just has fewer marketing channels.（这一句不太明白，我知道你的意思是公司的好坏并不取决于收集次数和卡车数量，而在于服务质量，但是后一句结论是如何得来的我没有看懂，并且流通渠道少到底说明的是什么问题我也很confuse，而且这个流通渠道少是好还是不好呢？）Thus, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that EZ is better than ABC based just little information to be presented.

Further, the arguer mentions EZ's exceptional service receives good response from its last year's survey, which has several aspects to be corrected. The arguer fails to say that these respondents are the representatives of the local people, and also does not mention the numbers of the respondents, if, they are only a very small part of the people to be surveyed, that, （then）these responses cannot even(去掉) represent the whole survey. And,（我有些不懂为什么在连词后面你喜欢用逗号，完全可以省略的吧？包括下句，like, if, in the survey, 为什么不可以直接说if the options in the survey were showed as…这样可以么？） it would be more convincing if we can be told about the detailed design of the survey, like, if, in the survey, has some inclines in itself, the choices that were showed are "extremely satisfied", "very satisfied", "satisfied", how can we believe the "satisfied" responses are the best feedback we can get from our customers? The results are just misleading somehow, and cannot provide the real situation about its reputation in the local town. Moreover, it also lacks information if ABC Waste also did the （same）survey and they got a higher remark. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer makes the conclusion too hastily and unwarranted.

Perhaps we cannot rule out the possibility that the town council advocates the proposal because of lacking in finance support and then chooses a cheaper one, which does nothing to do with EZ's performance compared with ABC Waste. Or even this argument is out of a supporter of EZ who can benefit a lot from this proposal. But,(thus or therefore好些吧) we just cannot simply accept the arguer's recommendation,（这句如果总结的话建议和上面的观点分开写。把以上观点总结下变成B3会更清晰些） which lacks several crucial information in the comparison of two trash companies and invalid responses in the survey. If more information and details can be provided, the argument may seem more convincing.
这篇总体观点不错，分析论点也比较透彻，思路也清晰，但是在分析过程中是说理和论据并不能有效地支撑论点，B1比较严重，B2的就比较好了，例子不错。因为文中if, and, like,之类的词很多，尤其是if，而且一直插入语，有时是没有必要的插入语，会让人觉得句子零散繁冗，尽量简单清晰地表达，也减少一些语法错误。而且注意连词的重要性，像however, therefore, nevertheless, thus, since很多啦，虽然看起来俗了一点，但可以把你的段落中间句子的逻辑关系加强，变得更紧凑。还有一个问题就是文章中现在时和过去时的混用，虽然说不上严重的语法错误，但是保持时态的一致会好一点。