再发一贴

lm080601UID: 2860850

看了GTER上大神之作 argument就应该这样写  模仿了一篇 求指正 开头我没有抄原文哦
首先能不能告诉我 我写的是不是英语， 大家能看懂吗？
其次 论证结构可行吗？
谢谢各位大神  

Grounding on the fact that the switching from EZ to ABC seemingly because the raised price of EZ, supposing that the three evidence could necessarily support the opinion that the EZ deserves the increase of charge, author accordingly conclude that the council should revert to EZ. Totally, there are two preconditions: the causality of the switching and the sufficiency and necessity of the evidence that help the author make the conclusion. However, each of the prerequisites has its own fallacies.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that it is the promotion of charging fees that lead to the replacement of the waste disposal companies. Many other factors could also illustrate why the council will choose ABC but not EZ. For example: probably, EZ is a corporation which does not care much about the environment or they may not capable of handling the garbage efficiently and environmentally as is ABC which might be a newly opened company with advanced technologies. Besides, possibly, ABC is adept in garbage recycling, the production from which such as CH4 could render the council a reputation with energy economy. Thus without the deliberate consideration of the drawbacks of EZ itself and in-depth research about why the council choose ABC, it is indiscreetly to deduce that it is the fees that result in the switching.

Secondly, the three evidence listed in the passage are not potent enough to illustrate that EZ is worthy of 2500 dollars. In the passage, the author said that EZ collects trash twice a week while once of ABC. Nevertheless, people may not need the extra time for collecting since once is enough. Also, although EZ collects more frequently and it will order additional trucks, no evidence shows that these two factors will demand $500 more charging fees, perhaps $200 is adequate. Furthermore, we do not know whether the respondents of the survey could be representative. Probably, people who respond to the survey are those who content with EZ. Therefore, the deduction that EZ deserves the increased fees is only a wishful thinking.

In sum, if I am the member of council, I would think that the recommendation of reusing EZ is not well supported. To convince me that ABC could not be comparable with EZ, the author should provide more detailed information about the pros and cons of the two garbage disposal companies to help the council make comprehensive evaluation rather than the comparison of the charges. However, the author only offers me the evidences supporting EZ but nothing related to ABC. What is more, ironically, all these evidences have their own fallacies.