argument11 经修改 大家再看看：）

蒂拉UID: 154415

11.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."

In this argument, the arguer concludes that West Egg’s landfill will last for considerably longer that predicted because of the strong commitment to recycling of the residents. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that (1) the aluminum and paper that has been recycled during the past two years is twice as much as it has in previous years. (2) the charges for garbage pickup will double. (3) most of the respondents to a recent survey promised to do more recycling in the future. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal that the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the participation of the recycling increased, it does not follow that the total amount of garbage would significantly declined. It is highly possible that the town of West Egg is an industry town in which most of the garbage can not be recycled or though many citizens participate in the recycling, most of them are elder and young who can only recycle a slight part of the total garbage.

Moreover, the arguer does not prove us that the increased recycle in aluminum and paper will diminish the garbage markedly. There maybe other kinds of garbage such as plastic which the recycling amount decreased or the whole amount of garbage has increased significantly during the past two years while the residents have recycled more garbage, more has been leaved and the available space in the landfill would even diminished.

Finally, the argument depends on a survey that over ninety percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling in the future from which the arguer concludes a strong commitment of residents to recycling. However, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative, Were the residents chosen for the survey chosen randomly? If the subjects are only limited to a certain group of residents like a group who participated in the recycling for years, the result of the survey will be unconvincing. Even if we accept that the respondents were chosen randomly, this survey is unwarranted because we still lack information about the validity of the results. For example, 1000 residents were surveyed but only 3 responded, the conclusion would be highly suspect.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

蒂拉UID: 154415

顶下  会回拍的：））

mythztUID: 162409

In this argument, the arguer concludes that West Egg’s landfill will last for considerably longer that(than) predicted because of the strong commitment to recycling of the residents. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that (1) the aluminum and paper that has been recycled during the past two years is twice as much as it(it指什么？) has in previous years. (2) the charges for garbage pickup will double. (3) most of the respondents to a recent survey promised to do more recycling in the future. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal that the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the participation of the recycling increased, it does not follow that the total amount of garbage would significantly declined. It is highly possible that the town of West Egg is an industry town in which most of the garbage can not be recycled or though many citizens participate in the recycling, most of them are elder and young who can only recycle a slight part of the total garbage.

Moreover, the arguer does not prove us(us可删去) that the increased recycle in aluminum and paper will diminish the garbage markedly. There maybe other kinds of garbage such as plastic which the recycling amount decreased(应该不用过去时吧？) or the whole amount of garbage has increased significantly during the past two years while the residents have recycled more garbage, more has been leaved(left) and the available space in the landfill would even diminished(diminish).

Finally, the argument depends on a survey that over ninety percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling in the future from which the arguer concludes a strong commitment of residents to recycling(此句有点绕啊，survey后面的定语从句去掉应该不影响表达吧？). However, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative, Were the residents chosen for the survey chosen randomly?(一开始没看明白啥意思) If the subjects are only limited to a certain group of residents like a group who participated in the recycling for years, the result of the survey will be unconvincing. Even if(层进，很不错) we accept that the respondents were chosen randomly, this survey is unwarranted because we still lack information about the validity of the results. For example, 1000 residents were surveyed but only 3 responded, the conclusion would be highly suspect.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.
我觉得还有一个攻击点在于垃圾收费增加未必导致垃圾填埋量减少，水平不高，只能改改语法和表达上的问题，楼主的攻击点抓得蛮好的，加油！

晨曦UID: 177893

如果没人看，试试看多改两篇别人的，既是借鉴学习，也是熟悉人口，才能有人来帮你呢。

作文论坛强调的是互动，而不是义务啦。认真就会有进步哦，不管是改别人的还是写自己的 :)

偶是局外人，说这个话可能方便些。勿见怪。错了算我的。

PS:可以利用页面下方的工具条来找 0回复 的文章的 —— 按照 “回复数量” 以 “降序” 排列......

BTW，楼主回拍哪位了？