argument11 有砖就拍,必报酬

猫猫624UID: 171232

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.'

Based on the fact that doubled amount of recycling aluminum and paper, increased charges for garbage pickup and a recent survey concerning more recycling in the future, the arguer asserts that the available space in landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. Close scrutiny, however reveals several logic holes and assumptions, which render the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The first problem with the argument involves the assumption that doubled amount of recycling aluminum and paper would result in the decreased total amount of garbage disposed in the landfill. Perhaps, the aluminum and paper account for only a small proportion of the whole garbage and other materials which cannot be recycled such as plastic and glass will increase. If true, the total amount of garbage will not decrease even the increased amount of recycling aluminum and paper. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer's cannot justify the claim that the available space in the land fill will last for longer than predicted.

The evidence that increased amount of material recycled next mouth and doubled charges for garbage pickup does not necessarily indicate the total amount of garbage will decrease. The arguer overlooks other factors influencing the total amount of garbage, such as population and demographic shits. It is possible that many people will immigrant into this city. Even if some garbage which was disposed will be recycled in the future, the total amount of garbage might be increased. Besides, no evidence is provided to substantiate the increased charge for garbage pickup would serve to decrease the amount of garbage pickup. The claim relies on the assumption that residents have other ways to deal with garbage. However, the arguer does not offer any strong evidence to support this possibility.

Another problem requiring further consideration relies on the survey that over 90% respondents claimed that they would do more recycling in the future. In order to substantiate the valid of this survey, the arguer should provide clear evidence to prove that the respondents are chosen randomly and they can be representative the overall opinion of residents. Without the evidence concerning sufficient and representative respondents, the arguer cannot draw any convincing conclusion whatsoever. Besides, there is no evidence to support whether the respondent's inclination about more recycling accords with their practical effects.

In conclusion, the argument is unsupportive as it is stands. Rather than relying solely questionable statistical survey, the arguer should provide clear evidence to prove that the total number of garbage pickup will definitely decrease due to the measure of recycling. To better assess the argument, strong evidence about the sufficient size and representation of respondents should be provided by the argument.

疯子兔八哥UID: 196616

我就没细看了,感觉不错,5分以上的样子吧:)
加油

benzherenUID: 193678

Based on the fact that doubled amount of recycling aluminum and paper, increased charges for garbage pickup and a recent survey concerning more recycling in the future, the arguer asserts that the available space in landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. Close scrutiny, however reveals several logic holes and assumptions, which render the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The first problem(用the first 后面没有什么没对应) with the argument involves the assumption that doubled amount of recycling aluminum and paper would result in the decreased total amount of garbage disposed in the landfill. Perhaps, the aluminum and paper account for only a small proportion of the whole garbage and other materials which cannot be recycled such as plastic and glass will increase. If true, the total amount of garbage will not decrease even the increased amount of recycling aluminum and paper. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer's cannot justify the claim that the available space in the land fill will last for longer than predicted.

The evidence that increased amount of material recycled next mouth and doubled charges for garbage pickup does not necessarily indicate the total amount of garbage will decrease. The arguer overlooks other factors influencing the total amount of garbage, such as population and demographic shits. It is possible that many people will immigrant into this city. Even if some garbage which was disposed will be recycled in the future, the total amount of garbage might be increased. Besides, no evidence is provided to substantiate the increased charge for garbage pickup would serve to decrease the amount of garbage pickup. The claim relies on the assumption that residents have other ways to deal with garbage. However, the arguer does not offer any strong evidence to support this possibility.

Another problem(用another感觉过渡上不是那么顺) requiring further consideration relies on the survey that over 90% respondents claimed that they would do more recycling in the future. In order to substantiate the valid of this survey, the arguer should provide clear evidence to prove that the respondents are chosen randomly and they can be representative the overall opinion of residents. Without the evidence concerning sufficient and representative respondents, the arguer cannot draw any convincing conclusion whatsoever. Besides, there is no evidence to support whether the respondent's inclination about more recycling accords with their practical effects.

In conclusion, the argument is unsupportive as it is stands. Rather than relying solely questionable statistical survey, the arguer should provide clear evidence to prove that the total number of garbage pickup will definitely decrease due to the measure of recycling. To better assess the argument, strong evidence about the sufficient size and representation of respondents should be provided by the argument.

总体上觉得逻辑不错，写得很好呀，能不能帮帮我看看阿，我还是新手的说，谢谢了。