还有两天就考试了 麻烦有高手给看看我这篇A能得多少分

heiwei1986UID: 2869844

练习了一阵时间， 心里没底，麻烦高手给点评一下吧 还有两天就考试了 谢了！！

Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. 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: 415
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-8-1 18:08:54

In this argument, the author asserts that the space in their landfill could last longer than former predicted. In order to support it, the author cites that the residents have done more recycling work and the charges for garbage will increase. However, after close scrutiny, the author's conclusion relies on several assumptions which render it questionable.

A threshold problem is that the author subjectively assumes that the more recycling with aluminum and paper could lead more space in the landfill. However, it is not necessary the case. Perhaps the former amount recycling of the aluminum and paper is too low to the effect would be little even the amount has been doubled. Even if the twice much paper or aluminum is effective, it is hard to say that the situation would maintain, it is possible that the recycling will decrease in the future. Granted the situation will keep on, it is possible the landfill is not used for disposal the aluminum or paper. These scenarios, if true will lead the twice recycling meaningless.

Moreover, it is hard to say that increasing charges could lead more recycling behaviors, perhaps the increasing price is acceptable or the garbage put in the landfill are the things the residents are hard to recycle and no matter how high the price is the people have to put it into landfill. Furthermore, granted the survey is typical, common sense tells that people are all prone to assert they would do more recycling in the future when has been asked with these questions. A promise does not mean an activity. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion would be vulnerable.

Finally, even the residents in West Egg do intend to do more recycling work in the future and would keep their promise. However, the situation nowadays does no represent the tomorrow, the author omits other situations would result in the increasing garbage. A large migrations, several new factories and the enlargement of the city and so forth, there are innumerous changes could happen. Without considering these, the assertion would be at least premature.

In sum, the author's conclusion that the landfill would last for longer is ill grounded. In order to bolster it , the author should inform the exact date to prove that the residents have done or would actually do more recycling works and these work will do decrease the garbage in the landfill. Moreover, the author should convince me that there would be no other changes could lead the increasing garbage in the landfill.

baidugoogleUID: 2864795

1# heiwei1986

首先我是菜鸟一只哈~~~
只是小看了一下结构，感觉模板痕迹还是蛮重的。。。LZ是不是试试改改开头结尾，不要这么模板化，千篇一律地看下来很烦的，建议看下ETS的6分范文。

hyacinthUID: 2184492

dont get your hopes up

JabberwockyUID: 2869851

没有限时，第一次写。
In this argument, the author conclude that the available space in West Egg’s landfill should last for longer than prediction done by consultants two years ago. To support the statement, the arguer cites that town residents recycle twice during the past two years and charges for garbage pickup will double. In addition, the author borrows a survey reflecting that most (over ninety percent) of the subjects said that they would do more recycling. Unfortunately, a careful/close review shows that this argument suffers from several critical logical fallacies.
First of all, the evidence, town residents recycle aluminum and paper more, is not enough to support the conclusion that the amount of garbage deposed into West Egg’s landfill would decline. It is very likely that most of the rubbish could not be recycled, specifically, waste glass, plastic bags and bad food. Therefore, though recycling has been becoming widely popular in West Egg during the past two years, there is possibility that the garbage abandoned into the town’ landfill would not decrease or even increase in amount. Assumed that a sizeable majority of rubbish can be recycled, the amount of garbage still may not reduce regarding the fact that only aluminum and paper have been recycled hugely from the argument, while the other rubbish can be recycled may not be recycled much. Additionally, the mere fact that the town residents have been recycling twice more than they did in pervious years is insufficient evidence to conclude that recycling turns more universal in West Egg, concerning the possibility that the town residents did recycling in a very little amount in the past then the “twice” is not much. Only if we are told that the rubbish thrown into the landfill are declining during the past two years or the material recycled, namely, aluminum and paper counts a large portion of the garbage can the conclusion be more sufficient.

In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generation. There is no information available to testify any convincing relationship between the increase of charges for garbage pickup and the rising of the amount of material recycled. Yet we are told nothing about the actual garbage-pickup-charges and the average revenue of the town residents. If the charges are low while the residents are wealth, it would make no difference at all to double the charges for garbage pickup. Even if the residents want to save money, it’s most likely that they will use material recycled frequently other than largely. As a result, the amount of material recycled would not be raised.
Finally, the argument fails to indicate what portion of the residents in West Egg surveyed actually. The surveyed subjects should cover the residents of distinctive age, various occupation and different backgrounds. But we can not find the details from the argument. Moreover, there is no information about the number of respondents, and then the survey is insufficient. On top of that, it is obviously possible that there will be a large number of respondents, who said they would do more recycling in the future in survey, doing very little recycling. Therefore the survey lacks convincingness.
As it stands, the argument is not well supported. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to show that the garbage abandoned into the landfill in West Egg has been declining. Furthermore, the arguer should provide the actual information about the correlation between more recycling and less garbage, which leads the landfill lasting for longer than predicted.