argument17 熊熊小组作业

duckyl35UID: 201612

17The 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."
提纲：
1 作者假设ABC不能提供满意的服务，而没有给出原因，信誉，工作态度等，仅仅是说ABC每周清理一次垃圾，也许一次清理对于城市已经足够；
2 EZ增加20辆卡车不一定就用来装运垃圾，其他用途，为其他城市服务；
3 调查不具有代表性；

The arguer claims that even though the EZ Disposal has raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 every month, the town should still use EZ rather than the ABC Waste whose fee is still $2,000 each month. To support the decision, the arguer illustrates that EZ collects trash twice a week, but ABC collects only once. Further more, EZ has ordered other 20 trucks for its work. And in addition, the arguer cites a survey to convince the readers. After some careful examination of the argument, we will find several flaws in the argument.

In the first place, the arguer makes an assumption that ABC can not provide good service as EZ, but there is not any evidence to confirm the assumption. Because we do not know the reputation of the ABC, or maybe the service which supplied by ABC is more convenient than EZ. The arguer only informs us that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, but this can not demonstrate the conclusion. Maybe we do not have so many trashes to collect, only once a week is enough, then there is no meaning of more collecting work. While even though all above is the case, the arguer fails to consider that the city has employed the EZ for ten years, maybe we do not know the sufficient service about ABC, which causes the ignorance of ABC. Considering the possibilities above, the decision is not persuasive as it stands.

Secondly, the arguer points out that EZ has ordered a fleet of 20 trucks additional. But the arguer fails to give us any information about the additional trucks’ utility. Maybe those trucks are not used for collecting trash, or EZ maybe expand its service to other cities, which has no relationship with Walnut Grove, then the additional trucks can not be the reason for our choice.

Thirdly, the survey arguer cited is not persuasive as it illustrates. The arguer tells us that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. But we do not know the survey population and the conditions of respondents. Maybe the survey is conducted among only a few people, and those who respond the survey are just those who really satisfied with EZ’s performance, but how about other people who fail to respond to the survey? Maybe the most non-respondents are unsatisfied with EZ, then the survey can not represent all residents in the city, so the conclusion is untenable.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing as the arguer aclaims. To make it more persuasive, the arguer should exclude all the possible reasons for a better choice of ABC. In addition, we should inform more information about the additional 20 trucks EZ has ordered. At last, the arguer should provide us more sufficient statistic about the survey.
今天的狗狗超时10分钟，但已经是duckly35最快的一次了，
感觉效果不好:( 还要加油！！:rolleyes:
互拍 留链接！:handshake

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-10 at 14:19 ]

purple1228UID: 2116196

The arguer claims that even though the EZ Disposal has raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 every month, the town should still use EZ rather than the ABC Waste whose fee is still $2,000 each month. To support the decision, the arguer illustrates that EZ collects trash twice a week, but ABC collects only once. Further more, EZ has ordered other 20 trucks for its work. And in addition and和in addition都是连词，用一个就好啦, the arguer cites a survey to convince the readers. After some careful examination of the argument, we will find several flaws in the argument.

In the first place, the arguer makes an assumption that ABC can not provide good service as EZ, but there is not any个人认为there is no 就足够了，感觉not any 不太通的说 evidence to confirm the assumption. Because we do not know the reputation of the ABC, or maybe the service which supplied by ABC is more convenient than EZ. The arguer only informs us that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, but this can not demonstrate the conclusion. Maybe we do not have so many trashes to collect, only once a week is enough, 建议改为句号，下句可以用therefore,thus,consequencetly,ect.then there is no meaning of more我喜欢用extra collecting work. While恩，我觉得也不要写while了 even though感觉前面就用过even though了，还可以用even if, given that之类的，呵呵，我也是一限时就慌，啥词都写不出来了，好容易想到一个还不sure 拼写对不对… all above is the case, the arguer fails to consider that the city has employed the EZ for ten years, maybe we do not know the sufficient service about ABC, which causes the ignorance of ABC.是不是想说因为作者没有说明ABC的具体服务都有什么，所以不能判断啊？但，你的这句话猛一看还以为你说你判断有漏洞呢…个人感觉不要在这里谦虚，要谦虚也要在结尾稍稍谦虚一下就好啦，万一判卷人眼一花…呵呵，当然他们水平都很高，但以两分钟一篇看过50篇的，基本上，这种事就难说了吧…建议不要这么写。可以说Only when the arguer provide clear information about ABC’s sufficient service can we fairly estimate which is the superior one仅供参考哈 Considering the possibilities above, the decision is not persuasive as it stands.

Secondly, the arguer points out that EZ has ordered a fleet of 20 trucks additional. But the arguer fails to give us any information about the additional trucks’ utility. Maybe those trucks are not used for collecting trash, or EZ maybe从省略句的角度讲，这个maybe就可以不要了 expand its service to other cities, which has no relationship with Walnut Grove, then the additional trucks can not be the reason for our choice.

Thirdly, the survey 这里的介词还是要要的 thearguer cited is not persuasive as it illustrates恩，调查也要例证说明么?. The arguer tells us that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. But we do not know the survey population这个就有点chinglish了吧？可以说the total number or percentage of the residents who participate in it and the conditions of respondents虽然中文里说调查人的情况但英文里相应的简洁的表达我还真没见过…当然这是我看的太少，不过，要是你也没见老美用过的话就最好不要这么说，我的建议是：whether the respondents can typify all the residents. Maybe the survey is conducted among only a few people, and those who respond这个是要用过去式地 the survey are just those who really satisfied with EZ’s performance, but how about other people who fail to respond to the survey这么写就罗嗦咯，but what about the rest? Maybe the most non-respondents are unsatisfied with EZ, 句号then这个then摆在这里啥意思？小女子生性愚钝，在你文里看见了许多次then,还是没悟出来… the survey can not represent all residents in the city, so the conclusion is untenable.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing as the arguer aclaims晕，拼写要注意哈. To make it more persuasive, the arguer should exclude all the possible reasons for a better choice of ABC楞没看懂. In addition, we should inform应为被动 more information about the additional 20 trucks EZ has ordered. At last, the arguer should provide us more sufficient statistic about the survey.

purple1228UID: 2116196

再说一下整题评价哈:lol
呵呵，感觉自己一向拍的都挺狠的...
表介意哈
总的来说还是很清晰的，就是有时语言不太地道，虽然地道的语言如出一辙，但是，我觉得还是必要地，八股文嘛，就要按格式套:p
我觉得issue的提高是困难地， 但argu还是很好搞定的，莫急莫急
我这也是一家之言，有很多由于好些年没学英语：p也只剩模糊的感觉了，而且很可能还感觉错咧，你还是多听听大家的意见哈:handshake
下次再来拍我的哦:lol