Argument17 我已经改过一遍了，请再帮我看

goldenrockUID: 122870

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."
--------------------------------

Based on the fact that people are inclined to choose a trash collection company which provides better service quality, in this argument the arguer compares services of EZ Disposal with ABC Waste in Walnut Grove, and then concludes that they should continue using EZ. However, several logic fallacies committed in the reasoning undermine the conclusion.

First of all, the arguer states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Based only on this fact, how can the arguer conclude that EZ is better than ABC? The arguer presumptuously assumes that a company's service times in direct proportion to its service quality which is logically unsound. For instance, ABC collects only once, it is probably because that ABC’s technology is at a higher level, and its workers are more efficient. Furthermore, more collections bring [是用bring or brings??]more noises and interruptions which may upset residents. In a word, concerning the times of trash collection, the arguer doesn’t give any evidence to convince us that the more the better.

Secondly, the arguer claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks in order to improve the performance of the trash collection system. However, the arguer doesn’t provide any fact about the trash amount of the town and whether 20 trucks are already enough. If it is enough, EZ raising its monthly fee to buy additional trucks is problematic. Otherwise, if it is not, the question of whether buying additional trucks is the best way to solve the problem is still up in the air. Maybe hiring some more workers or renovating the devices of current trucks is a more economical and satisfied way. The arguer doesn’t provide any information about the other means, needless to say a comparison among them. Furthermore, additional trucks may cause other problems such as noises and the traffic flux. So, without enough information, whether adding additional trucks will improve the service is dubious.

Finally, the arguer provides that in the last year’s town survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance. Yet, the arguer doesn’t indicate how many people have taken part in the survey. If only 1 percent in all, it doesn’t make any sense. Moreover, the type of the survey is also unknown. Perhaps it only provides a selection between ‘satisfied’ and ‘unsatisfied’, then most people have to choose ‘satisfied’ reluctantly. Furthermore, it’s only a survey of last year, how about EZ’s performance in other nine years? This unconvincing survey also weakens the soundness of the argument.

In conclusion, it is merely negative to evaluate the service quality of companies based only on the unreliable facts. If the arguer wants to convince us the judgment fairly, he or she should supply more substantial and concrete evidence on the trash collection system, the trash amount of Walnut Grove and the details of the survey.

goldenrockUID: 122870

顶一下！

goldenrockUID: 122870

help!!

poohUID: 146994

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.\"
--------------------------------

Based on the fact that people are inclined to choose a trash collection company which provides better service quality, in this argument the arguer compares services of EZ Disposal with ABC Waste in Walnut Grove, and then concludes that they should continue using EZ. However, several logic fallacies committed in the reasoning undermine the conclusion.

First of all, the arguer states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Based only on this fact, how can the arguer conclude that EZ is better than ABC? The arguer presumptuously assumes that [后面这个从句缺少谓语] a company\'s service times in direct proportion to its service quality which is logically unsound. For instance, ABC collects only once, it is probably because that ABC’s technology is at a higher level, and its workers are more efficient. Furthermore, more collections bring [是用bring or brings??用bring,但是这里用result in比较好，表示产生] more noises [noise不可数] and interruptions which may upset residents. In a word, concerning the times of trash collection, the arguer doesn’t give any evidence to convince us that the more the better. [有可能这个城市的垃圾很少，所以每周一次就足够了，没有必要两次]

Secondly, the arguer claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks in order to improve the performance of the trash collection system. However, the arguer doesn’t provide any fact about the trash amount of the town and whether 20 trucks are already enough. If it is enough, EZ raising its monthly fee to buy additional trucks is problematic. Otherwise, if it is not, the question of whether buying additional trucks is the best way to solve the problem is still up in the air. Maybe hiring some more workers or renovating the devices of current trucks is a more economical and satisfied [ -->satisfying] way. The arguer doesn’t provide any information about the other means, needless to say a comparison among them. Furthermore, additional trucks may cause other problems such as noises and the traffic flux. So, without enough information, whether adding additional trucks will improve the service is dubious. [这段论证的很有逻辑性，不错不错]

Finally, the arguer provides that in the last year’s town survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance. Yet, the arguer doesn’t indicate how many people have taken part in the survey. If only 1 percent in all, it doesn’t make any sense. Moreover, the type of the survey is also unknown. Perhaps it only provides a selection between ‘satisfied’ and ‘unsatisfied’, then most people have to choose ‘satisfied’ reluctantly. Furthermore, it’s only a survey of last year, how about EZ’s performance in other nine years? This unconvincing survey also weakens the soundness of the argument. [可能人们对ABC的满意度更高呢]

In conclusion, it is merely negative to evaluate the service quality of companies based only on the unreliable facts. If the arguer wants to convince us the judgment fairly, he or she should supply more substantial and concrete evidence on the trash collection system, the trash amount of Walnut Grove and the details of the survey.

[总的来说，全文逻辑性比较好，几个错误点都把握住了，语法错误不多，应该可以得4-5分
]

goldenrockUID: 122870

hahaa, thanks so much!

alinazhUID: 187151

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."
--------------------------------

Based on the fact that people are inclined to choose a trash collection company which provides better service quality, in this argument the arguer compares services of EZ Disposal with ABC Waste in Walnut Grove, and then concludes that they should continue using EZ. However, several logic fallacies committed in the reasoning undermine the conclusion.开头写得很不错呀！！

First of all, the arguer states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once.我觉得TS应该直接概括这段的逻辑错误，这样argu显得更加有说服力，而不只是单单陈述一下提出的证据而已。 Based only on this fact, how can the arguer conclude that EZ is better than ABC? The arguer presumptuously assumes that a company's service times in direct proportion to its service quality which is logically unsound. 你这句写得比我好For instance, ABC collects only once, it is probably because that ABC’s technology is at a higher level, and its workers are more efficient. Furthermore, more collections bring [是用bring or brings??]我觉得应该用第一个more noises and interruptions which may upset residents. In a word, concerning the times of trash collection, the arguer doesn’t give any evidence to convince us that the more the better.

Secondly, the arguer claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks in order to improve the performance of the trash collection system. However, the arguer doesn’t provide any fact about the trash amount of the town and whether 20 trucks are already enough. If it is enough, EZ raising its monthly fee to buy additional trucks is problematic. Otherwise, if it is not, the question of whether buying additional trucks is the best way to solve the problem is still up in the air. Maybe hiring some more workers or renovating the devices of current trucks is a more economical and satisfied way. The arguer doesn’t provide any information about the other means, needless to say a comparison among them. Furthermore, additional trucks may cause other problems such as noises and the traffic flux. So, without enough information, whether adding additional trucks will improve the service is dubious.这段说的很好，除了我觉得第一句的TS应该变一下以外。

Finally, the arguer provides that in the last year’s town survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance. Yet, the arguer doesn’t indicate how many people have taken part in the survey. If only 1 percent in all, it doesn’t make any sense. Moreover, the type of the survey is also unknown. Perhaps it only provides a selection between ‘satisfied’ and ‘unsatisfied’, then most people have to choose ‘satisfied’ reluctantly. Furthermore, it’s only a survey of last year, how about EZ’s performance in other nine years? This unconvincing survey also weakens the soundness of the argument.

In conclusion, it is merely negative to evaluate the service quality of companies based only on the unreliable facts. If the arguer wants to convince us the judgment fairly, he or she should supply more substantial and concrete evidence on the trash collection system, the trash amount of Walnut Grove and the details of the survey.
总的来说写得很好，如果是在限时下写得，我想考试的时候应该有个好成绩。