Argument17 机井题，谢谢！！

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."

In this letter, the author disagrees on the council advocation and insists on that the town should continue using EZ not ABC. To support this conclusion, the author provides some evidence, such as EZ collects trash more than ABC, EZ ordered additional trucks and exceptional service, and a survey. However, close scrutiny reveals that these evidences lead little support on this conclusion.

First of all, there is no information that EZ's collections twice a week is better for the town than ABC's once a week in the town. Whether the trash collection is good or bad is not determined by how many times to collect trash a week rather than the result from the collection. It is may be that ABC's once a week is enough for the town because the residences in town do not throw away lots of trash, or because of the better efficiency for ABC's workers. So, for EZ, their twice a week may reveals their deficiencies on lower workers efficiency or earning town's additional money, and the second time may be the reason for EZ increasing the fee. Thus, EZ's collection twice a week as a reason for EZ better than ABC is unfounded.

Secondly, the fact additional trucks in EZ does not convince us that it will better for town in trash collection. The author fails to rule out some possible reasons for additional trucks, for example, because EZ develop new business in another town, they need additional trucks. In addition, does the town actually need the additional trucks? Original trucks can satisfy the town's demand. Therefore, the evidence on additional trucks leading better service than ABC for the town is also unconvinced.

Thirdly, the author fails to convince us that EZ' exceptional service is good. It is because the detailed situation about respondents of the survey for the exceptional service is uncertain. It may be that those respondents are those favoring EZ' service. And the people holding opposite opinion may not answer the survey. Meanwhile, how many those respondents occupy the whole residence is also unknown. Thus, the information about survey is too vague to show its representative factor. Therefore, whether exceptional service can become good reason for continuing serving in this town is still unfound.

In conclusion, the author’s disagreement on the council’s suggestion is incomplete. In order to support that EZ has the better ability on the trash collection for the town, the author should show more detailed factors, which demonstrate that EZ’s trash collection twice a week, additional trucks and exceptional service are all more necessary than any other companies, because of the development of the town. Meanwhile, EZ’s increasing fee is also rational but not baseless.

alinazhUID: 187151

up up

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."

In this letter, the author disagrees on the council advocation and insists on that the town should continue using EZ not ABC. To support this conclusion, the author provides some evidence, such as EZ collects trash more times than ABC, EZ ordered has orderedadditional trucks and exceptional service, and a survey. However, close scrutiny reveals that these evidences lead little support on this conclusion.

First of all, there is no information that EZ's collections twice a week is better for the town than ABC's once a week in the town. Whether the trash collection is good or bad is not determined by how many times to collect trash a week rather than the result from the collection这句写得不好. It is may be thatPerhaps that ABC's once a week is enough for the town because the residencesresidents in town do not throw away lots of trash, or because of the better efficiency for ABC's workers. So, for EZ, their twice a week may reveals their deficiencies on lower workers efficiency or earning town's additional money, and the second time may be the reason for EZ increasing the fee. Thus, EZ's collection twice a week as a reason for EZ better than ABC is unfounded没检查过吗.

Secondly, the factthat additional trucks in EZ does not convince us that it willbe better for town in trash collection. The author fails to rule out some possible reasons for additional trucks,句号 for example, because EZ develops new business in another town, they need additional trucks. In addition, does the town actually need the additional trucks? Original trucks can satisfy the town's demand. Therefore, the evidence on去on, that additional trucks leading better service than ABC for the town is also unconvinced.

Thirdly, the author fails to convince us that EZ' exceptional service is good. It is because the detailed situation about respondents of the survey for the exceptional service is uncertainunclear. It may be that those respondents are those favoring EZ' service. And the people holding opposite opinion may not answer the survey. Meanwhile, how many those respondents occupy the whole residence is also unknown. Thus, the information about survey is too vague to show its representative factor. Therefore, whether exceptional service can become good reason for continuing serving in this town is still unfound.

In conclusion, the author’s disagreement on the council’s suggestion is incomplete这词不好. In order to support that EZ has the better ability on the trash collection for the town, the author should show more detailed factors直接details, which demonstrate that EZ’s trash collection twice a week, additional trucks and exceptional service are all more necessary than any other companies, because of the development of the town. Meanwhile, EZ’s increasing fee is also rational but not baseless.

同是17请帮我看一下：
http://edu.gter.net/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251082

keldaUID: 156803

In this letter, the author disagrees on the council advocation avocation and insists on that the town should continue using EZ not ABC. To support this conclusion, the author provides some evidence, such as EZ collects trash more than ABC, EZ ordered additional trucks and exceptional service, and a survey. However, close scrutiny reveals that these evidences lead little support on this conclusion. 开头不错，很清楚

First of all, there is no information that EZ's collections twice a week is better for the town than ABC's once a week in the town. Whether the trash collection is good or bad is not determined by how many times to collect trash a week rather than the result from the collection. It is 去掉ismay be that ABC's once a week is enough for the town because the residences in town do not throw away lots of trash, or because of the better efficiency for ABC's workers. So, for EZ, their twice a week may reveals their deficiencies on lower workers efficiency or earning town's additional money, and the second time may be the reason for EZ increasing the fee. Thus, EZ's collection twice a week as a reason for EZ better than ABC is unfounded. 这段分析的很透彻，攻击点也抓得好，不错

Secondly, the fact of additional trucks in EZ does not convince us that it 去掉it,改为using EZwill be better for town in trash collection. The author fails to rule out some possible reasons for additional trucks, for example, because EZ want to develop new business in another town, they need additional trucks. In addition, does the town actually need the additional trucks? Original trucks can satisfy the town's demand. Therefore, the evidence on additional trucks leading better service than ABC for the town is also unconvinced. 这段也分析的不错

Thirdly, the author fails to convince us that EZ' exceptional service is good. It is because the detailed situation about respondents of the survey for the exceptional service is uncertain. It may be that those respondents are those favoring EZ' service ones. And the people holding opposite opinion may not answer the survey. Meanwhile, how many those respondents occupy the whole residence is also unknown. Thus, the information about survey is too vague to show its representative factor. Therefore, whether exceptional service can become good reason for continuing serving in this town is still unfound. 最后这两句可以合并一下。分析上没有问题

In conclusion, the author’s disagreement on the council’s suggestion is incomplete. In order to support that EZ has the better ability on the trash collection for the town, the author should show more detailed factors, which demonstrate that EZ’s trash collection twice a week, additional trucks and exceptional service are all more necessary than any other companies, because of the development of the town. Meanwhile, EZ’s increasing fee is also rational but not baseless.
这篇是你限时写的吗？写的不错啊~