Argument17，求拍，越狠越好！

joyce==UID: 2857353

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."

以下是我写的：
In this argument, the author suggests that residents of Walnut Grove’s town should continue using EZ for trash collection services, other than ABC Waste. To support his point, the writer cites the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks on the basis of 20 trucks. Moreover, to prove that EZ is the optional choice with exceptional service, the author cites the result of last year’s town survey, in which 80 percent of respondents agreed that they are ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance. On the surface, the argument appears to be somewhat logical, however, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the author assumes that EZ get better cleanness effect merely based on the fact that EZ collects trash one time more than ABC, while he showed no evidence on the correlation between times of trash collection and the effect of this. It is possible that the trucks’ capacity of EZ’s is less than ABC’s so that they need a second time to collect the rest trash. Another possibility can be that, due to EZ’s lack of effectiveness, it takes more time than ABC to collect trash, consequently EZ will collect trash twice a week. As no information concerning the capacity and efficiency of these two companies’ trucks is provided, the conclusion that EZ will perform better on cleaning is in-eloquent.

In the second place, the fact that EZ, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks, is insufficient evidence that EZ’s performance is better than ABC’s. The arguer fails to prove the proportionality between the number of trucks and the cleanness of the town. Moreover, the 20 additional trucks may not be used for Walnut Grove’s town, it is entirely possible that EZ put these trucks into use in other towns due to aging and damage of current trucks. Unless the author provide evidence to show that more trucks will be used for collecting Walnut Grove’s town’s trash and will result in a more efficient performance, under no circumstance should we believe that EZ Disposal is a wise choice for the local residents.

Another fact, as mentioned in the argument, that 80 percent of respondent to last year’survey were satisfied with EZ’s performance, lends little support to the author’s conclusion. The author fails to demonstrate that these residents a representative of the whole population in Walnut Grove’s town whose trash EZ collects. If the number of respondents only accounts for a tiny proportion of overall population, then this survey may be unreliable. Further more, even though the survey is conducted rigorously, the result that 80 percent are satisfied with EZ’s performance is still too vague to show that EZ is better than ABC. Since there isn’t a comparison between these two companies, we cannot conclude that if ABC is chosen for trash collection service, the company will get a higher satisfaction ratio (maybe 90 percent or more) than EZ. Moreover, because this survey is conducted last year, it merely reflects the residents’ attitude towards EZ a year ago, the author cannot convince me the condition remains unchanged this year and residents will continue to satisfy with EZ in the future. Without a survey into residents’ current opinion toward EZ, we hardly can draw the conclusion that they are still satisfied with EZ.

In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive as it sands. Accordingly it is imprudent for the author to claim that EZ should be continually chosen for trash collection. To make the argument more convincing, I would like to know the current satisfaction ratio among the whole population whose trash EZ collects, and obtain opinions from residents who experience both EZ and ABC’s service.

joyce==UID: 2857353

被无视了T_T 新手上路，哪位路过的高人指点一下我吧。。。万分感谢！

kelvinwhuUID: 2778961

first
首段的复述感觉有点罗嗦  试着用一个长句子简化就好了  而且不用全部复述 只要把其中的reasoning line里列出来应该就可以了吧
second
ineloquent写错了
还有就是我觉着lz的语言上是不是应该在稍微修炼下  如果能有几个能够glittering的长句就更好了
再就是在攻击点上  我个人的切入点是1  ez到底是不是有abc好  2   如果ez的确比abc好  那是不是abc对于walnut已经足够了（只买对的不买贵的）  3  那个poll是不是反映了民意  是不是有时效性（做调查时ez还是2000）
这个就是我的看法了  也给我看看吧呵呵  一样是第一篇啊
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... xtra=#pid1774201602