argument17-G-89-互助社-8.9日同主题写作

polymathUID: 179557

你辛苦了！给你加油啊！:):victory:

polymathUID: 179557

"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."


说明：半小时写了337字，只写到第三个攻击段落的一半，限时失败。全文448words.自我感觉写得没达到ETS insightfully的要求，而且模版味道很重,结尾很草率。请大家指点迷津，感激不尽。
提纲：（1）一周收两次垃圾没必要=/好服务；（2）添的卡车未必为本市服务=/好服务；（3）居民说EZ好=/不能启用ABC

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue usingusing不太好吧？是使用还是利用啊？直接用原文的contract with 就好了！ EZ. To support this recommendation the arguer cites the following facts: (1) EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once; (2)EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks; (3)EZ provides exceptional service; (4)80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. （3）和（4）是一处漏洞，（4）是（3）的具体解释！Close scrutiny of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend effective support to the recommendation.


First, the evidencethat EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once does not necessarily indicate that the service of EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps collecting trash once a week is quite enough for the residents if they do not produce much trash.  In that case, although EZ charges lower for every service, it is reasonable to consider EZ's extra service per week as a waste of money. If so, on the basis of frequency of collection it would make no sense to choose EZ to server Walnut Grove.


Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks is little indication that EZ will provide better services in the future. No credible evidence shows that EZ will use the for the Walnut Grove town's trash service. It is entirely possible that EZ  use these trucks for other towns or cities' trash services. Or perhaps EZ does not intend to use these trucks for trash service at all. It might use these trucks for transportation, for example. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for EZ's order for additional trucks, the arguer can not convince us on the basis of them that EZ will provide better services than ABC, let alone that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ.


    Finally, even if EZ provide good services, and 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, yet the argument contains no eviderce to support this assumption that EZ is better than ABC. EZ has served the residents for ten years, and there is no chance for the residents to accept other company’s service, which might lead to the situation that the residents know little about ABC, or even they accept some flaws of EZ since they have not seen a better company. Since the price of EZ’s services has gone up, the arguer have no fair reason to prevent residents from accepting ABC’s services.


  To sum up, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should find out the reason for EZ’s high price, and what kind of additional services it can provide.

呵呵！这篇的漏洞很明显！批的都很好！开头的不足请改正。为什么没有写完啊！看来你太累了！注意休息啊！:)

fishjoyUID: 2116013

Originally posted by polymath at 2005-8-9 22:56
你辛苦了！给你加油啊！:):victory:

谢谢你的耐心修改。你也很辛苦啊，天天为智囊团的事忙得团团转。同加油！:handshake