argument17 泡面队15号作业

bishao422UID: 204362

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.'

In this letter, the writer concludes that the Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. To support this conclusion, the writer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. He also cites that EZ has ordered additional trucks and he provides a survey, which shows that there are 80 percent of respondents were 'satisfied' with EZ’s performance. Careful scrutiny of the writer's letter reveals that the conclusion relies on several unproven assumption, and is therefore unpersuasive to some extent.

To begin with, the writer unfairly infers that the EZ is better than ABC because that it collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. The writer makes a mistake that the time of trash collection can't represents the efficiency of a company. Perhaps although the ABC collects trash only one time a week, it can provide a better service for citizens than EZ. Or perhaps, the EZ has to collect trash twice a week because that it doesn't try its best to do at the first time. Without ruling out these explanations, the writer can't convince me that EZ does a better job than ABC.

Secondly, the writer also concludes too hastily that the EZ will become better because it has ordered additional trucks. But this need not be the case, even if the EZ adds more trucks, it doesn’t mean that using these trucks can give a better service for the clients. The writer overlooks other possibilities that EZ is still worse than ABC if it doesn't increase the work efficiency of its company. So the writer makes a wrong assumption that is dubious.

In addition, the survey amounts to scant evidence of the writer's implicit conclusion that the respondents feel satisfied with EZ. But, whether the respondents were selected in a random manner is open to doubt. Moreover, even if the result of survey is credited, the survey also can't support the writer's claim. Because, although the respondents were satisfied with EZ, when compared with ABC, they may feel more satisfied with ABC than EZ. In short, the letter's conclusion, which relies on this survey, is unwarranted.

To sum up, the writer's conclusion is logically unsound. To strengthen it, the writer should demonstrate that the EZ have a high efficiency and could provide better services than ABC. To better access this letter, I would need more information about that what is the respondents' attitude to ABC.

硬柿子UID: 204138

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.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this letter, the writer concludes that the Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. To support this conclusion, the writer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. He also cites that EZ has ordered additional trucks and he provides a survey, which shows that there are 80 percent of respondents were 'satisfied' with EZ’s performance. Careful scrutiny of the writer's letter reveals that the conclusion relies on several unproven assumption, and is therefore unpersuasive to some extent.

To begin with, the writer unfairly infers that the EZ is better than ABC because that it collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. The writer makes a mistake that the time of trash collection can't represents the efficiency of a company. Perhaps although the ABC collects trash only one time a week, it can provide a better service for citizens than EZ. Or perhaps, the EZ has to collect trash twice a week because that it doesn't try its best to do at the first time. Without ruling out these explanations, the writer can't convince me that EZ does a better job than ABC.有可能用的垃圾车的载量不同呢?

Secondly, the writer also concludes too hastily that the EZ will become better because it has ordered additional trucks. But this need not be the case, even if the EZ adds more trucks, it doesn’t mean that using these trucks can give a better service for the clients. The writer overlooks other possibilities that EZ is still worse than ABC if it doesn't increase the work efficiency of its company. So the writer makes a wrong assumption that is dubious.

In addition, the survey amounts to scant evidence of the writer's implicit conclusion that the respondents feel satisfied with EZ. But, whether the respondents were selected( in a random manner) at random词组 is open to doubt. Moreover, even if the result of survey is credited, the survey also can't support the writer's claim. Because, although the respondents were satisfied with EZ, when compared with ABC, they may feel more satisfied with ABC than EZ. 也就是没有进行横向比较In short, the letter's conclusion, which relies on this survey, is unwarranted.

To sum up, the writer's conclusion is logically unsound. To strengthen it, the writer should demonstrate that the EZ have a high efficiency and could provide better services than ABC. To better access this letter, I would need more information about that what is the respondents' attitude to ABC.
觉得你可能忽略一个点，就是有可能ABC的地理位置相对近些，还有调查的可靠性，那些增加车辆的的消息有可能是EZ的广告之词罢了

prodigykingUID: 2128939

Firstly, the author claims that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. The logical reasoning the author implies is that quality amounts to quantity. However, commonsense tells us that quality could never guarantee quality, efficacy and efficiency of a company. Although EZ seems to work more than ABC, we can never jump to the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps ABC's technology of trash collection is much more advanced and sophisticated than EZ's, or perhaps ABC's employees are much more professional than EZ's and thus they could get twice the result with half the effort. Unless the arguer can rule out these and other possibilities, it is not cogent to draw the conclusion from this reason.

Secondly, to substantiate his conclusion, the author also points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks and the number of its trucks would surpass ABC's. Actually, just as I have mentioned in the above passage, quantity does not mean high quality. If ABC's trucks are more convenient to operate and more advanced in technology, the company of course needs no more trucks at all. In the contrast, perhaps it is just because of the fact that EZ could not complete and better its service with 20 trucks that it has to buy more trucks. Besides, EZ recently raised its monthly fee by 500 dollars and the raise perhaps just sprang from its investment in additional trucks.

Thirdly, the author says that EZ provides exceptional service and 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. However, the author fails to provide the survey about ABC. Perhaps 90% respondents were extremely satisfied with ABC's performance last year. Lacking such statistic comparison, the author's conclusion is far from convincing. Besides, the arguer hasn't provided the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents. Thus, the survey might be not scientific at all. In addition, we could not know whether ABC provides exceptional service from the evidence provided by the author. Even if only EZ has such kind of service,  it could be the reason that EZ's service is not perfect and complete compared with ABC's.

To sum up, the conclusion of this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make the argument more convincing, the author has to provide more evidence to disprove my foregoing doubts.

偶的限时作文~~~~~~~~~~~~HOHO。。。跟你一样的提号哦