Argument11 我的第一篇 请给点意见

lianglcl05UID: 181629

本人的第一篇阿狗，同时也是第一篇AW。希望大家给点建议。不仅是在用词和句法上，同时在思路、结构和论证上。尤其在第一段的写法上，尽管看了imong 的巨作，还是有些不知如何是好。另外，是不是字数有些少啊，只有413 :( 
       你的批评是对我最大的帮助。先谢了！！
针对文章的三个论据分别进行反驳：
  1．铝和纸的回收率提高了一倍，不代表废物的总的回收情况得到了提高。除非有证据表明铝和纸是废物的主要组成。
  2．垃圾费的提高不一定促进人们去回收更多的废物。因为也许人们的收入比较高，不在乎费用的提高。
  3．90％回应者，不表示总的情况与意愿，不能证明其代表性。

Argument 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.'


The memo reveals a possible relationship between the facts and the endurance of the landfill. However, it is presumptuous to draw the conclusion that the landfill will last longer than predicted, since the mayor may ignore some potential factors that undermine the validity of his evidence.

Firstly, the survey about the constitution of the town's garbage is needed to show how much proportion aluminum and paper make in the total amount. It is entirely possible that the aluminum and paper only consist 5 percent of the aggregation of the town's waste. In that case, even though twice as much as these garbage have been recycling during the past two years than in previous years, no conspicuous improvement has been achieved in increasing the total amount of the recycled materials. Therefore, it is fallacious to assume the improved recycle ability toward the aggregation of the town’s trash from the single statistic. What’s more, it will contribute little to the longer endurance of the landfill.

In addition, the mayor assumes that the doubled charges for garbage pickup may put some financial pressures on the residents driving them to recycle more materials. Unfortunately, it may not the case. In the passage, the author fails to give some background information about the West Egg's economy. Maybe the town is well developed these years, which lead to the notable raise of the residents' living standard. Compared with the highly increased income, the raised cost seems negligible. So the double charged fees will exert little influence on their budget, let alone to cause the residents to develop a recycling habit.

Finally, though over 90 percent of the respondents are willing to recycle more materials, the survey doesn't well represent the strong recycling commitment of the residents in that it fails to demonstrate that the respondents are representatives of the overall residents whose trash goes to the landfill. It is entirely possible that the people who are willing to recycle are more likely to response. It is also possible that the survey is only conducted to the housewives who are always anxious about the family budget. Unless more information about the survey is provided, the statistic lends little credible support to the conclusion.

In sum, the conclusion based on the given material is not persuasive. Much more work, including showing the component of the town's garbage, giving some background information about the town's economy as well as the reliability of the survey, are needed to make the prediction more convincing.

lianglcl05UID: 181629

既然有人看，为什么不说点什么呢？是不是先太烂了，那样的话，就使劲批吧。
用罗永浩的话说，大家都是出来混的。互相支持吧

louisheluUID: 190902

The memo reveals a possible relationship between the facts and the endurance of the landfill.（这句话似乎有点问题）However, it is presumptuous to draw the conclusion that the landfill will last longer than predicted, since the mayor may ignore some potential factors that undermine the validity of his evidence.（我也觉得开头不好写，但是我不喜欢restate，所以我会先写出作者的assumption 然后接着说明作者什么地方错了，依此作为自己以后反驳的提纲。）

Firstly, the survey about the constitution of the town's garbage is needed to show how much proportion aluminum and paper make in the total amount.（show the proportion of the aluminum and paper in the total amount） It is entirely possible that the aluminum and paper only consist 5 percent of the aggregation of the town's waste. In that case, even though twice as much as these garbage have been recycling(recycled) during the past two years than in previous years, no conspicuous improvement has been achieved in increasing the total amount of the recycled materials. (我觉得这些可以写得更加具体一些，列举一些其他的污染物，他们在以后的几年中可能大大的增加)Therefore, it is fallacious to assume the improved recycle ability toward the aggregation of the town’s trash from the single statistic. What’s more, it will contribute little to the longer endurance of the landfill.

In addition, the mayor assumes that the doubled charges for garbage pickup may put some financial pressures on the residents driving them to recycle more materials. Unfortunately, it may not the case. In the passage, the author fails to give some background information about the West Egg's economy. Maybe the town is well developed these years, which lead to the notable raise of the residents' living standard. Compared with the highly increased income, the raised cost seems negligible. So the double charged fees will exert little influence on their budget, let alone to cause the residents to develop a recycling habit.（不错）

Finally, though over 90 percent of the respondents are willing to recycle more materials, the survey doesn't well represent the strong recycling commitment of the residents in that it fails to demonstrate that the respondents are representatives of the overall residents whose trash goes to the landfill.（觉得你反驳的是两点，应该分开来写，不要放在一个长句中） It is entirely possible that the people who are willing to recycle are more likely to response. （这是对调查的质疑，和上面的represnentative 类似，一般调查的可行性，可以分好几点来反驳，好好写写，我觉得arg57不错，你可以拿来练练，写个模式：））It is also possible that the survey is only conducted to the housewives who are always anxious about the family budget. Unless more information about the survey is provided, the statistic lends little credible support to the conclusion.

In sum, the conclusion based on the given material is not persuasive. Much more work, including showing the component of the town's garbage, giving some background information about the town's economy as well as the reliability of the survey, are needed to make the prediction more convincing.结尾是总结，提些建议应该是个不错的方式：）
加油喔！！

我这几天一直在写Arg， 收获还行，但是限时不成功：（

lianglcl05UID: 181629

多谢这位同志的建议。
首先，我也认为第一段表述有问题。我想说明他的evidence 推他的结果只是一种可能。本想用a  possible cause-effect relationship,但是感觉不能把survey概括进去，所以说起来有些含糊。
再次，非常感谢第二段关于其他污染物的建议。这比我在那绕来绕去强多了:)
但是，对于survey的问题，我想我要表述的就是没有代表性的问题。不过，还是很感谢你的提议，我一定会好好琢磨arg 57的。
最后，感谢你的认真分析，确实让我收获很多，非常感谢。今天的第一篇，从写到修改用了大半天的时间。至于限时练习，我想还是要一步步来的。祝你进展顺利！