Argument17 寄托4人组 8-25

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Argument17: 356 words   27 minutes
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 argument, the speaker concludes that Walnut Gorve (WG) should continue using EZ to collect its garbage. Although the argument bears some merits, after a careful scrutiny, several critical flaws undermine the validity of its reasoning.

To begin with, the speaker fails to prove that it is necessary to collect garbage at WG twice a week. It is quite possible that collecting once a week is enough to make WG clean. If this is the case, ABC can finish the same task without additional $500 a month, why should we still use EZ?

Secondly, although the EZ has ordered additional trucks, it does not follow that EZ will use them to enhance its service at WG. There lies the possibility that EZ raises its monthly fee and orders additional trucks to establish a new fleet only for the purpose of expanding its business at another town nearby. If this is true, the speaker's assumption that EZ's newly ordered trucks are for the benefit of WG is groundless.

Moreover, the survey sited to credit EZ's exceptional service is questionable. On the one hand, the speaker does not provide any information about how the survey is conducted. If the actual number of participators in it is too small to represent the entire population at WG; if respondents are not randomly chosen; if the questions in the questionnaire are leading, any results generated from the survey are open to doubt. On the other hand, even assuming that EZ provided high-quality service during last year, it cannot warrant that it will provide the same kind of service consistently. In addition, if citizens were informed that the EZ is going raise their monthly fee, they would less likely to approve its service quality.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing due to the flaws mentioned above. To strengthen its reasoning, the speaker should demonstrate that collecting garbage more than once a week is necessary and EZ will use its additional trucks to improve its service at WG. Moreover, the reliability of the town survey should be verified to prove EZ's exceptional service, and it will always be exceptional in the future.

esmeirasUID: 202885

In this argument, the speaker concludes that Walnut Gorve (WG) should continue using EZ to collect its garbage. （ Although the argument bears some merits, after a careful scrutiny, several critical flaws undermine the validity of its reasoning. 语法是没有问题的； 但是，你这是简洁式开头，就2句话，没有长句不符合老美习惯。 建议把这句合成复杂句。 Eg: although the arguments sounds reasonable at the first glance,…..,a close scrutiny reveals …）

To begin with, the speaker fails to prove that( it is necessary to 删) collect ( that collecting)  garbage at WG twice a week (is necessary 这里用后置定语避免下文 it is 的重复). It is quite possible that collecting once a week is enough to make WG clean. If this is the case, ABC can finish the same task without additional $500 a month, why should we still use EZ?  （ 第一点应该是论证最为丰满的一点，是不是可以考虑加强论述或换一下论点的位置？）

Secondly, although the EZ has ordered additional trucks, it does not follow that EZ will use them to enhance its service at WG. There lies the possibility that EZ raises its monthly fee and orders additional trucks to establish a new fleet only for the purpose of expanding its business at another town nearby. If this is true, the speaker's assumption that EZ's newly ordered trucks are for the benefit of WG is groundless.

Moreover, the survey sited to credit EZ's exceptional service is questionable. On the one hand, the speaker does  ( have  提醒一下，这个错误在语法里有点显眼的；) not provide any information about how the survey is conducted. If the actual number of participators in it is too small to represent the entire population at WG; if respondents are not randomly chosen; if the questions in the questionnaire are leading, any results generated from the survey are open to doubt. On the other hand, even assuming （given that? ） that EZ provided high-quality service during last year, it (这个it 指代谁？ 最好是写the arguer, 你后面不是还有 it will provide……吗，这两这指代的人物不一样，都用it 会引起混乱。 在前面用arguer是不是清楚些？) cannot warrant that it will provide the same kind of service consistently. In addition, if citizens were informed that the EZ is going raise their monthly fee, they would less likely to approve its service quality.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing due to the flaws mentioned above（above ，of ,off..这些介词放在后面一般是口语中或者是不太正式的文体里面。 不过，影响不是特别大） To strengthen its reasoning, the speaker should demonstrate that collecting garbage more than once a week is necessary and EZ will use its additional trucks to improve its service at WG. Moreover, the reliability of the town survey should be verified to prove EZ's exceptional service, and it will always be exceptional in the future.

Comments:
错误都找出来了，观点还是很明晰的。
第一点应该是论证最为丰满的一点，是不是可以考虑加强论述或换一下论点的位置？
第一，二点可以找一点套话； 这样子还是觉得单薄了一点。
开头意思很明确，花一点时间再锤炼一下，开头很重要哦！
我的变色工具删了，将就着看看吧， 呵呵
加油！

meautoUID: 2116250

hoho,nice girl~