argument 17 kito战队jingjingtous作业，这么晚才交，实在抱歉，我会好好检讨自己的

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

这么晚才发上来实在抱歉，我面壁思过！
Argument 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."
WORDS：445          TIME：0:30:00          DATE：2005-12-16

提纲：
1 EZ每周比ABC多收一次垃圾布代表EZ的效率高，速度快。
2 EZ定购了更多的卡车不一定会用于清理垃圾，可能用于别的方面。
3 调查的回应者不具有代表性。
4作者没有提供证据表明市委选择ABC是因为它的低价格，可能是ABC的流程快。

This letter's author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should hire EZ Disposal for the town's trash disposal, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To bolster this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash one more time than ABC does per week, and the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks. The author also cites the fact that 80% of respondents are agreed that they satisfied with EZ 's performance. This argument is unconvincing in several respects as it stands.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, one more time than ABC does lends scant support to this argument. The author provide no evidence that EZ 's trash collecting is more efficient than ABC. It is entirely possible that EZ collects less trash than ABC does per week. Without comparing the volume of trash and the speed of collecting between the two companies, the author cannot persuade me that EZ does a better job than ABC.

Secondly, the mere fact that EZ has order additional trucks lends no support to the author's conclusion. The author fails to confirm that EZ ordered these trucks only for trash-disposal, rather than other utilization. If EZ do use these truck for trash-collecting purpose, then i would agree with the author's conclusion, otherwise, i would not.

Thirdly, the author assumes based on the survey that EZ's service is better than ABC's is completely unwarranted. The author provides no evidence that the respondents are statistically representative of the overall population of people whose trash EZ and ABC collect. Perhaps people who are inclined to EZ are more willing to respond to the survey than other are not. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot convince me EZ's service are better than ABC's.

Finally, the author unfairly rests on EZ 's higher price to concludes that higher charge is the reason why Walcut Grove chose ABC. The author overlooks other factors that might affect the council's decision. Perhaps ABC's collects trashes more and thoroughly than EZ, or perhaps ABC has a better and larger trash=disposal procedure. Lacking such evidence, the author cannot convince me that the council should choose EZ but not ABC.

In sum, the argument is problematic in several respects as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide clearly that EZ collects more trashes and more efficiently than ABC by collecting them twice a week and that the additional trucks EZ ordered will be used in disposing trash to improve its collecting speed. To better evaluate the argument it would be helpful to know the representative of the survey's respondents and the better service of EZ deserve its higher price.

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

在附件中，呵呵。

kito9695UID: 209685

以后方便的话，就直接贴在帖子里吧，大家可以讨论，组长还可以用来总结

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

This letter's author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should hire EZ Disposal for the town's trash disposal, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To bolster this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash one more time than ABC does per week, and the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks. The author also cites the fact that 80% of respondents are agreed that they （加个are）satisfied with EZ 's performance. This argument is unconvincing in several respects as it stands.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, one more time than ABC does lends scant support to this argument. The author provide（provides） no evidence that EZ 's trash collecting is more efficient than ABC. It is entirely possible that EZ collects less trash than ABC does per week. Without comparing the volume of trash and the speed of collecting between the two companies, the author cannot persuade me that EZ does a better job than ABC.（写得挺好的，我收获很大^-^）

Secondly, the mere fact that EZ has order additional trucks lends no support to the author's conclusion.(重复用这个句型是不是有些单调了？) The author fails to confirm that EZ ordered these trucks only for trash-disposal, rather than other utilization. If EZ do use these truck(trucks) for trash-collecting purpose, then i(I) would agree with the author's conclusion, otherwise, i (I)would not.(可以再让步一次，就算真的是用作收捡垃圾，怎么知道对方没有order additional trucks?)

Thirdly, the author assumes(the author’s assumption) based on the survey that EZ's service is better than ABC's is completely unwarranted. The author provides no evidence that the respondents are statistically representative of the overall population of people whose trash EZ and ABC collect (whom EZ serves). Perhaps people who are inclined to EZ are more willing to respond to the survey than(改为while) others are not. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot convince me EZ's service are（is） better than ABC's.

Finally, the author unfairly rests on EZ 's higher price to concludes（conclude） that higher charge is the reason why Walcut Grove chose ABC(the reason for Walcut Grove’s chooseing ABC). The author overlooks other factors that might affect the council's decision. Perhaps ABC's collects trashes more and thoroughly than EZ, or perhaps ABC has a better and larger trash=disposal procedure. Lacking such evidence, the author cannot convince me that the council should choose EZ but not (rather than)ABC.

In sum, the argument is problematic in several respects as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide clearly that EZ collects more trashes and more efficiently than ABC by collecting them(them可以去掉) twice a week and that the additional trucks EZ ordered will be used in disposing trash to improve its collecting speed. To better evaluate the argument it would be helpful to know the representative of the survey's respondents and the better service of EZ deserve(deserves)its higher price.

你是限时写的么，好强的，我写Argument得写一个多小时，呵呵。这篇写得总体说来还不错，就是拼写错误太多了，可能是由于限时的原因吧。加油！

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

怎么我还是不能把文字改颜色呢？ 崩溃了

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

Originally posted by bunnymz2005 at 2005-12-17 16:10
怎么我还是不能把文字改颜色呢？ 崩溃了

你先把错误和你的评语用鼠标托成蓝色（即选中），然后看标题下面的三个选项：
字体，字号，颜色，你点颜色，然后下拉菜单里面有你想要的颜色，用鼠标单击，你再看你选中的文字，两边出现【color】【red】........【color】，这样就OK了