argument17 有拍必回 第一次限时失败555

GracielinUID: 2155155

共用时间：52分33秒  500 words

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.'
------正文------
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the two companies, the arguer's claim that it is wrong for the Walnut Grove's town council to advocate switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste only because EZ has recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 per month seems logical.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the more the companies collect the trash, the better the service is. Since EZ collects trash twice a week which is more than that of ABC, the council should choose EZ. However, this is not necessarily the case .It is possible that the Walnut Grove will be quiet clear only under trash collection once a week. Actually, unless only one time is not enough, more times of the collection are only way of waste.

Also in reference to the idea that "the more, the better", the author falsely recommends that we should keep on using EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Are 20 trucks enough for the needs of Walnut Grove town? No evidence is stated in the argument to answer this question. If ,say, only 15 trucks are needed to finish the whole collecting job, then what's the use of the additional trucks bought by EZ?

Furthermore, the survey cited by the author is too vague to be informative. In the first place, the number of the residents and that of the respondents were not known. And this weakens the validity of the results. What if only 10 people of the 10 million population in the town were surveyed, and all have responded to the poll, in which 8 people said they were satisfied with EZ Disposal, or that 1000 subjects were studied, but no more than 10 echoed. The rate 80% is not convincing at all. In addition, no information about the residents' satisfaction with ABC Waste has been offered. There may be much higher satisfaction with ABC Wastes' performance, say 95%, given that the survey is informative. Also, noting that the survey was conducted last year while the council's choice was made this year, perhaps they have already taken the survey into consideration but EZ's perfomance has declined this year.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that undermines the argument. Given that EZ is better than ABC, the council will need to consider all aspects of the town. Money, which is quite crucial, must play an important role in their consideration. If the town is faced with a situation in which $500 per month is quite a heavy load, the council's choice may be a better one for the moment. May it be the case that several months later, when the financial situation of the town is better, the council will switch back to EZ Disposal again.

To sum up, though the reasoning seems to be persuasive, before includes the given factors discussed above, the author could not deny the council's choice.

GracielinUID: 2155155

第一次限时失败，还有十天就考了。大家猛拍啊。

hepengmcUID: 203123

你的文章我看过了，语法和论证上还是很不错的，但是对于逻辑上的把握没有到位。你应该把第四短放在第二段的地方，因为他是主要矛盾，并且第五段也应该往前面提，因为他也是主要矛盾。对于第二第三段的话，应该放在最后面。再考试的时候，一定要嫌攻击主要矛盾！！这个是我的文章，过来拍拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D4

yanhuangbabyUID: 178305

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the two companies, the arguer's claim that it is wrong for the Walnut Grove's town council to advocate switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste only because EZ has recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 per month seems logica这里接下来是不是应该还有呢？l.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the more（这里好象欠个名词吧，不知道friquency这个词行不） the companies collect the trash, the better the service is. Since EZ collects trash twice a week which is more than that of ABC, the council should choose EZ. However, this is not necessarily the case .It is possible that the Walnut Grove will be quiet clear only under trash collection once a week. Actually, unless only one time is not enough, more times of the collection are only way of waste？.

Also in reference to the idea that "the more, the better", the author falsely recommends that we should keep on using EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Are 20 trucks enough for the needs of Walnut Grove town? 这里感觉还不到点子，再深入写几句比较好。No evidence is stated in the argument to answer this question. If ,say, only 15 trucks are needed to finish the whole collecting job, then what's the use of the additional trucks bought by EZ?

Furthermore, the survey cited by the author is too vague to be informative. In the first place, the number of the residents and that of the respondents were not known. And this weakens the validity of the results. What if only 10 people of the 10 million population in the town were surveyed, and all have responded to the poll, in which 8 people said they were satisfied with EZ Disposal, or that 1000 subjects were studied, but no more than 10 echoed. The rate 80% is not convincing at all. In addition, no information about the residents' satisfaction with ABC Waste has been offered. There may be much higher satisfaction with ABC Wastes' performance, say 95%, given that the survey is informative. Also, noting that the survey was conducted last year while the council's choice was made this year, perhaps they have already taken the survey into consideration but EZ's perfomance has declined this year.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that undermines the argument. Given that EZ is better than ABC, the council will need to consider all aspects of the town. Money, which is quite crucial, must play an important role in their consideration. If the town is faced with a situation in which $500 per month is quite a heavy load, the council's choice may be a better one for the moment. May it be the case that several months later, when the financial situation of the town is better, the council will switch back to EZ Disposal again.这里最好避免写，感觉不像是在攻击逻辑错误[，或者你换个角度/color]
To sum up, though the reasoning seems to be persuasive, before includes the given factors discussed above, the author could not deny the council's choice.