argument10 机井 欢迎杂砖，必回拍

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

--------题目----------
11The 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."


                      --------正文----------
In this argument, the arguer claims that the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted, because of our residents’ strong commitment to recycling. At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, how ever, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument simply equates aluminum and paper with the whole garbage, which is unwarranted and somewhat ridiculous. Commons tells us that garbage comprise of various other kinds of wasting things besides aluminum and paper. It is quite possible that the ratio of the amount of aluminum and paper to the total is very low and the qualities of other rubbish increase dramatically, thus the increasing higher recycling rate can not stop the increasing of the amount of garbage.

Secondly, the doubled garbage pickup charge does not necessarily lead to the increase of the amount of recyclable material. Although the pickup charge has been doubled, it might be still lower than the cost of recycling. At this condition, no more people would like recycling garbage. Besides, it is equally possible that the recycling of garbage takes so much time that the residents would rather pay the high pickup charge than recycle them.

Thirdly, thoughts are not always the same as reality. As we know, many kinds of rubbish can not be recycled. In this sense, the residents’ aspiration of recycling garbage does not reduce the amount of wastes thrown to the landfills. Meanwhile, the recycling rate of garbage in our town might have been very high, we can not enhance the recycling rate even with high-technology. If this is true, the commitment to recycling only becomes void slogan.

Finally, granted that the amount of rubbish thrown to the landfill by the residents decrease as the arguer expects, the available space in our landfill does not necessarily last longer. Besides the domestic rubbish generated by residents, lots of other places such as factory also produce wasting things. It is no evidence that they will recycle more rubbish, too. Even if all of these places can recycle more rubbish, the increase of garbage that can not be recycled might larger than the augment of the recycled wastes, therefore, the total amount of garbage still expands.  

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the garbage that more garbage would be recycled and their increase qualities are larger than enhance of the non-recyclable rubbish.

蓝清UID: 158106

--------题目----------
11The 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."


--------正文----------
In this argument, the arguer claims that the available space in our landfill 称呼应该改。不能这样原封不动地引用吧should last for considerably longer than predicted, because of our residents’ strong commitment to recycling.对原文的论据的复述有点太简单了 At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, how ever, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument simply equates aluminum and paper with the whole garbage, which is unwarranted and somewhat ridiculous. Commons tells us that garbage comprise of various other kinds of wasting things besides aluminum and paper. It is quite possible that the ratio of the amount of aluminum and paper to the total is very low and the qualities of other rubbish increase dramatically, thus the increasing higher recycling rate can not stop the increasing of the amount of garbage.

Secondly, the doubled garbage pickup charge does not necessarily lead to the increase of the amount of recyclable material. Although the pickup charge has been doubled, it might be still lower than the cost of recycling. At this condition, no more people would like recycling garbage. Besides, it is equally possible that the recycling of garbage takes so much time that the residents would rather pay the high pickup charge than recycle them. 而且能回收的东西毕竟是有限的

Thirdly, thoughts are not always the same as reality. As we know, many kinds of rubbish can not be recycled. In this sense, the residents’ aspiration of recycling garbage does not reduce the amount of wastes thrown to the landfills. Meanwhile, the recycling rate of garbage in our town might have been very high, we can not enhance the recycling rate even with high-technology. If this is true, the commitment to recycling only becomes void slogan.这个调查的对象是否具有代表性，被调查的人数是否可以保证ninety percent 这个结果有意义

Finally, granted that the amount of rubbish thrown to the landfill by the residents decrease as the arguer expects, the available space in our landfill does not necessarily last longer. Besides the domestic rubbish generated by residents, lots of other places such as factory also produce wasting things. It is no evidence that they will recycle more rubbish, too. Even if all of these places can recycle more rubbish, the increase of garbage that can not be recycled might larger than the augment of the recycled wastes, therefore, the total amount of garbage still expands. 这段作为正文的第二段，可使文章更连贯

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the garbage that more garbage would be recycled and their increase qualities are larger than enhance of the non-recyclable rubbish.最后一句不太好懂

攻击点找得很全面，思路清晰
以上个人的建议，希望能有点帮助
加油

xueerUID: 196304

--------题目----------
11The 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."


--------正文----------
In this argument, the arguer claims that the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted, because of our residents’ strong commitment to recycling. At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, how ever, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument simply equates aluminum and paper with the whole garbage, which is unwarranted and somewhat ridiculous. Commons tells us that garbage comprise（s） of various other kinds of wasting（应该是waste吧） things besides aluminum and paper. It is quite possible that the ratio of the amount of aluminum and paper to the total is very low（读起来感觉不顺我写了一下the amount of aluminum and paper only accounts for a small proportion of the total waste. ） and the qualities（数量quantity） of other rubbish increase dramatically, thus the increasing(是不是increased) higher recycling rate can not stop the increasing (increase)of the amount of garbage.

Secondly, the doubled garbage pickup charge does not necessarily lead to the increase of the amount of recyclable material. Although the pickup charge has been doubled, it might be still lower than the cost of recycling. At（in吧） this condition, no more people would like recycling （to recycle）garbage. Besides, it is equally possible that the recycling of garbage takes so much time that the residents would rather pay the high pickup charge than recycle them.

Thirdly, thoughts are not always the same as reality（reality is not always the same as what we assume）. As we know, many kinds of rubbish can not be recycled. In this sense, the residents’ aspiration of recycling garbage does not reduce the amount of wastes thrown to the landfills.(感觉和第一段重复)Meanwhile, the recycling rate of garbage in our town might have been very high, we can not enhance the recycling rate even with high-technology. If this is true, the commitment to recycling only becomes void slogan.
（另外提出我找出的其他批点responded;    other residents out of the town whose garbage also is disposed into the landfill ）
Finally, granted that the amount of rubbish thrown to the landfill by the residents decrease as the arguer expects, the available space in our landfill does not necessarily last longer. Besides the domestic rubbish generated by residents, lots of other places such as factory also produce wasting things. It is no evidence that they will recycle more rubbish, too. Even if all of these places can recycle more rubbish, the increase of garbage that can not be recycled might larger than the augment of the recycled wastes（可以使用counteract）, therefore, the total amount of garbage still expands.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the garbage that more garbage would be recycled and their increase qualities are larger than enhance of the non-recyclable rubbish
只是我的一些看法，还请批评使用，一起努力吧！

crystal_shenUID: 158842

--------题目----------
11The 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."


--------正文----------
In this argument, the arguer claims that the available space in our should not use "our" but "WE's" landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted, because of our residents’ strong commitment to recycling. this "because of ..." reads not cmft At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, how ever, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument arguer (in this argument the author ...) simply equates aluminum and paper with the the concept of the whole garbage, which is unwarranted and somewhat ridiculous. Commons tells us that garbage comprises of various other kinds of wasting things besides aluminum and paper. It is quite possible that the ratio of the amount of aluminum and paper to the total is very low and the qualities quantities of other sorts of rubbish increase dramatically, thus the increasing higher recycling rate can not stop the increasing of the amount of garbage. last sentence is vague in expressing

Secondly, the doubled garbage pickup charge does not necessarily lead to the increase of the amount of recyclable material. Although the pickup charge has been doubled, it might be still lower than the cost of recycling. At this condition, If so, no more people would like recycling recycle garbage. Besides, it is equally possible that the recycling of garbage takes so much time that the residents would rather pay the high pickup charge than recycle them. would rather do ... than doing ... ?

Thirdly, thoughts are not always the same as reality. not a good TS for a body, since it is hard for the reader to understand what you are going to talk about at first glance. As we know, many kinds of rubbish can not are unable to (cannot means never never, be unable to means could not at this moment. who knows what will happen?) be recycled. In this sense, the residents’ aspiration of recycling garbage does could not reduce the amount of wastes thrown to the landfills. Meanwhile, the recycling rate of garbage in our town might have been very high, we can not enhance the recycling rate we could only enhance the recycling rate a litter even with high-technology. If this is true,If this is the case, the commitment to recycling only becomes void slogan.

Finally, granted that the amount of rubbish thrown to the landfill by the residents decreases as the arguer expects, the available space in our landfill does not necessarily last longer. Besides the domestic rubbish generated by residents, lots of other places such as factory also produce wasting things. It is There is no evidence showing that they will recycle more rubbish, too either. Even if all of these places can recycle more rubbish, the increase of garbage that can not be recycled might larger than the augment of the recycled wastes, therefore, the total amount of garbage still expands.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning reasoned and lack of credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the garbage that more garbage would be recycled and their increase qualities are and this increase amount is larger than enhance of the non-recyclable rubbish.


just some suggestions.
what is more, it will read better if you develop your analysis bodies longer, since they're a little short like chops.
^_^
And "firstly, secondly, thirdly ..." need to be replaced by some better words or phrases.