第一篇作文，Argument 11，帮忙点评

RevolutionUID: 2978745

第一篇作文，在pp3上练习写的，没有限时但稍微控制了下时间，贴出来字数只有390，比pp3上感觉来的少（pp3会给人错觉啊）

感觉很烂啊~~~
没有修改，包括拼写错误也没改。主要想保持原始状态。另外，小弟只看了范文和网上资料，没看北美，也没弄新东方模板，所以好像写的不太“规范”，呵呵。

希望大家帮忙狠狠点评，狠狠拍砖。谢谢了~~~

The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"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. "



The argument seems logical at first glance. The author provide three evidences including that the amount of material recycled increased, that the charge for garbage pickup will double and a survey result, and then conclude that the available space in landfill shuold last for considerably longer than predicted. However, the argument is not well-reasoned and fails to provide sufficient and valid evidences to convince the conclusion. I will discuss it as follows.

First, the arguer unfairly assumes that the action of recycling twice as much alunminum and paper during the past two years will contribute to decreasement of the garbage. But it is entirely possible that the amount of garbage does not decrease, even it may increase. Perhaps when residents recycle more alunminum and paper, they throw out more other-type garbages such as electric products, glass, or foods. In addition, even if the amount of garbage really decreased during the past two years, it does not means that the condition will continue in the future. It is possible that residents produce more garbages due to the changes of the town. Perhaps more products of foods and toys will go into the market in West Egg, and they will be resources leading to more garbages. Unless the arguer provide more direct evidence to the conclusion, he or she will not convince me.

Also, the assumption that double of the charge for garbage pickup will cause the increasement of the amount of material recycled is untenable. The resident may not reduce the garbage and recycle more materials when they prefer to pay the increased charge than spend time on recycling the materials. Besides, if the price of the paper and metal goes down, the resident may incline to buy new ones rather than choose to recycle them.

Finally, the survey as mentioned cannot suffice to support the conclusion since we do not know who and how many the respondents are. It is possible the respondents are some individuals who advocate environmentalism-- maybe they are just a minority in the town and most of the residents do not like to protect environment.

While the arguer provides some evidences that seem to support the conclusion, he or she fails to consider alternative conditions and explanations. If the arguer can provide more detail and valid evidences, he or she may make a more persuasive argument.