查看: 1432|回复: 4

[a习作temp] agrument 应该这样写之二 argument 17 之外篇 argument 可不可以这样写？？求互改 [复制链接]

doraliu
UID: 2842061

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 56
寄托币: 3470
注册时间: 2010-6-27
精华: 0
帖子: 148

发表于 2010-12-29 19:32:41 |显示全部楼层

本帖最后由 doraliu 于 2010-12-30 13:05 编辑

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, 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.'

In the statement WG town council advocates a switch from EZ to ABC to collect their trash because ABC is cheaper, while the author asserts that they should be still in contract with EZ for three reasons, first EZ collects trash two times, one more time than ABC does; second, ABC has 20 trucks or maybe more; third, last year’s statistics shows that residents in WG were satisfied with EZ’s service.

In this statement, both the writer and the town council miss the key points that need to be concerned in making a decision. As far as I am concerned, the key points we need to consider are: first, what we want; second, what can the companies can offer and then we match our demands with their offers. In the statement, the WG council only take the price into consideration, that may be arrogant. For the writer, he considers about the companies’ service, but his reasons are faulty in supporting his conclusion. As we know collecting trash twice a week does not necessarily mean ABC do better than EZ, though it collects trash any once a month. And the number of trucks of ABC tells us nothing about their service. Then last years survey was done at the price of 2000, residents may be satisfied with their service at this price, but when price rising, they have a higher expectation.
And I explain my position as below:

Before we make a decision, we need to know what we want. So, an investigation should be conducted to figure out what citizens in WG want. And from the information provided in the statement, there are two aspects of demands, one is to save money, the other is to make the community as clear as possible.

Then we need to know what the companies can provide. There is possibility that ABC can provide better service at a cheaper price that means ABC is more efficient in management, and they have more advanced technology in collecting and dealing with trash. There is also possibility that ABC asks for less, but at the same time they provide worse service while EZ charges more but their service is better .

So if the first possibility is true, then we don't need to struggle, we choose ABC for their cheaper price and their better service. And if the second possibility is true, then we need to consider about what the citizens want. If statistics show that they want to save money, then they choose ABC and they need to tolerance a relatively dirty community. If they want to have a clear environment and afford a higher price, then they should choose EZ.

So my point is when making the decision, we need to know what we want, save money or have a clearer environment ; and we should also know what is available, it is wonderful if there is cheaper and better one, if no, choose one that could maximize our utility. It is true in this statement, and also true in making other decisions.