argument17 G89,11日

liulin12369UID: 2112878

17.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."

The speaker conclude that we should continue using EZ instead of ABC and the

speaker point out three evidences to support the EZ's superiority: first, the

more frquency of trash collection services; second, the larger amount of

trucks; third, the good reflection of the service. Besides, the only defect is

the high price and it indeed deserves the sum. Careful scrutiny of the argument

expose several laogical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, twice a week's trash collection cannot equate a more thorough

clearing up. There are not concrete evidence about the instance of the trash.If

the waste is not so heavy, only one time to collect it is sufficient everyweek.
The competence of the everytime to do the job is not mentioned at all. For

instance, the workers of the ABC company is more skillful than the EZ's, one

time per week will be enough. Moreover, perhape the devices of ABC are more

efficient and the degree of the clean is more thorough and thus the ABC service

may take a long time every time. In these cases, we cannot safely support the

degree of the clean.

Secondly, the order of 20 additional trucks of EZ Disposal scarcely means a

more efficient service. For instance, they only order 20 trucks and can not buy

them for the sack of money shortage. Even if they indeed buy these trucks,

maybe they power of cleaning is not enough to burden the the whole town's work.

Moreover, after this fetch in the truck, no evidence shows that the cempetence

of the EZ will exceed the work of ABC Waste.

Thirdly, the speaker cite the survey to prove EZ' service has satisfied the

residents, but we still cannot draw the the conclusion. For one thing, the EZ

Disposal serviced the residents 10 years and thus the inclination to continue

it may stem from a credit of familarity. If they have tried the ABC service,

they may find it better and change their attitude. For the oher thing,

credibility of the survey lacks of evidence. If the survey only include the

ones who are satified, the remains' opinion will be neglected. Moreover, 80

percent of respondents are satisfy means there are still 20 percent are not.

Perhaps, the switching will satify all the residents.

Finally, the increase of money should be taken into consideration. Maybe the

town has suffered from a econony depression, and many residents cannot afford

such a high price. If so, better service will give way to lower pay.

In sum, the speaker's conlusion is logically indefensible the speaker should

provide more credite evidence to bolster it.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-11 at 14:35 ]

polymathUID: 179557

顶！偶也写了！写得很差！真是郁闷！:L

liulin12369UID: 2112878

17.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 have 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."

The speaker conclude that we should continue using EZ instead of ABC and the speaker point out three evidences to support the EZ's superiority: first, the more frequency of trash collection services; second, the larger amount of trucks; third, the good reflection of the service. Besides, the only defect is the high price and it indeed deserves the sum. Careful scrutiny of the argument exposes several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, twice a week's trash collection cannot equate a more thorough clearing up. There is not concrete evidence about the instance of the trash. If the waste is not so heavy, only one time to collect it is sufficient every week. The competence of the every time to do the job is not mentioned at all. For instance, the workers of the ABC Company is more skillful than the EZ's, one time per week will be enough. Moreover, perhaps the devices of ABC are more efficient and the degree of the clean is more thorough and thus the ABC service may take a long time every time. In these cases, we cannot safely support the degree of the clean.

Secondly, the order of 20 additional trucks of EZ Disposal scarcely means a more efficient service. For instance, they only order 20 trucks and cannot buy them for the sack of money shortage. Even if they indeed buy these trucks, maybe they power of cleaning is not enough to burden the whole town's work. Moreover, after this fetch in the truck, no evidence shows that the competence of the EZ will exceed the work of ABC Waste.

Thirdly, the speaker cite the survey to prove EZ' service has satisfied the residents, but we still cannot draw the conclusion. For one thing, the EZ Disposal serviced the residents 10 years and thus the inclination to continue it may stem from a credit of familiarity. If they have tried the ABC service, they may find it better and change their attitude. For the other thing, credibility of the survey lacks of evidence. If the survey only includes the ones who are satisfied, the remains' opinion will be neglected. Moreover, 80 percent of respondents are satisfying means there are still 20 percent are not. Perhaps, the switching will satisfy all the residents.

Finally, the increase of money should be taken into consideration. Maybe the town has suffered from a economy depression, and many residents cannot afford such a high price. If so, better service will give way to lower pay.

In sum, the speaker's conclusion is logically indefensible the speaker should provide more credited evidence to bolster it.

jiyichuanUID: 209474

大概看了一下 语言一般 有满多TYPOS 哦
错误基本都找出来了
你还真是高效率啊  感觉你应该自己整理一点常用的句子 写精点

你十五考吧 加油
等你的机井！

liulin12369UID: 2112878

整理了呢！~，但是语言就这样了阿

fishjoyUID: 2116013

The speaker conclude that we should continue using EZ instead of ABC and the speaker point out three evidences to support the EZ's superiority: first, the more frequency of trash collection services; second, the larger amount of trucks; third, the good reflection of the service. Besides, the only defect is the high price and it indeed deserves the sum. Careful scrutiny of the argument exposes several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, twice a week's trash collection cannot equate a more thorough clearing up. There is not concrete evidence about the instance of the trash. If the waste is not so heavy, only one time to collect ittrash collection once a week is sufficient every week. The competence of the every time to do the job is not mentioned at all. For instance, the workers of the ABC Company is more skillful than the EZ's, one time per weekonce a week will be enough. Moreover, perhaps the devices of ABC are more efficient and the degree of the clean is more thorough and thus the ABC service may take a long time every time. In these cases, we cannot safely support the degree of the clean.

Secondly, the order of 20 additional trucks of EZ Disposal scarcely means a more efficient service. For instance, they only order 20 trucks and cannot buy them for the sack of money shortage. Even if they indeed buy these trucks, maybe they power of cleaning is not enough to burden the whole town's work. Moreover, after this fetch in the truck, no evidence shows that the competence of the EZ will exceed the work of ABC Waste.

Thirdly, the speaker cite the survey to prove EZ' service has satisfied the residents, but we still cannot draw the conclusion. For one thing, the EZ Disposal serviced the residents 10 years and thus the inclination to continue it may stem from a credit of familiarity. If they have tried the ABC service, they may find it better and change their attitude. For the other thing, credibility of the survey lacks of evidence. If the survey only includes the ones who are satisfied, the remains' opinion will be neglected. Moreover, 80 percent of respondents are satisfying means there are still 20 percent are not. Perhaps, the switching will satisfy all the residents.

Finally, the increase of money should be taken into consideration. Maybe the town has suffered from a economy depression, and many residents cannot afford such a high price. If so, better service will give way to lower pay.

In sum, the speaker's conclusion is logically indefensible the speaker should provide more credited evidence to bolster it.
基本的逻辑错误都找出来了，但是语言方面简单句太多，给人没气势的感觉。好的argu都是给人咄咄逼人的感觉的。赶紧看老外280，建一个漂亮的模版。没剩几天了，加油！:victory:
帮我看看，谢谢了:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=316878

[ Last edited by fishjoy on 2005-8-11 at 23:57 ]

liulin12369UID: 2112878

没时间了，句子就这样了~~~写多了也写不好了

liulin12369UID: 2112878

阿狗逼我，咄咄逼人~~汗

liulin12369UID: 2112878

我现在抓内容就好了，形式是次要了。语言到时候紧张肯定忘光了~~现在准备不现实了