argument17 义无反顾小组第三次作业

天边一朵云UID: 2157330

17The 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."



Argument 17  
617 words

提纲：1）住户不一定在乎一周收垃圾的次数
      2）住户对EZ满意不排除对ABC更满意的可能
      3）调查数据不可靠
      4）卡车增多不代表服务质量好
In this analysis, the arguer intends to prove that Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ disposal for trash collection services which has had contract for trash collection services for the past ten years, instead of switching to ABC waste. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that although EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000, it provides the trash- collecting services twice a  week ,in excess of that by ABC Waste. Another pieces of evidence presented to support the argument is that EZ has ordered more trucks ,making the amount of the trucks it possessed exceed that of ABC. In addition, he cites the result of a last year's survey that 80 percent of respondents showed their satisfaction towards  EZ's performance. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide evidence about whether residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Will the residents of Walnut Grove's town produce such a large amount of trash that services twice a week are necessary and worth while the increase of the monthly fee? The answer perhaps is no. It is possible that people would rather pay for a relative low price than receive the extra and unneeded services ,deeming it as  waste of money and lack of efficiency.

In the second place, the fact that many residents are satisfied with EZ's performance does not eliminate the possibility that these residents will be just as, if not more, satisfied with ABC's performance. The arguer provides no convincible comparison between the two companies in aspects such as services, techniques, credit except that EZ collects trash once more than ABC. Moreover, due to the fact that EZ has been serving the town for ten years, it is more than likely that the residents have no idea of whether there are better services than that of EZ, for they do not have other choices. So it is quite unfair to suggest that the town should not switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste.

What further weakens the argument is that the statistical evidence upon which the argument relies is too vague to be informative. On the first hand, the arguer provides no evidence that the survey represents the opinions of the masses in the town, as a matter of fact that people who are unsatisfied with EZ did not respond to the survey, thus invalidating the result of it. On the other hand, take it for granted that these opinions are typical among the residents, the survey was conducted last year when the fee has not been raised. No one can assure that the result will not reverse in this year's situation.

Last but not least, the arguer mentions an increase in the amount of trucks in EZ to support the argument, while fails to point out whether the extra trucks will be used in Walnut Grove's town. We can not rule out the possibility that these trucks are intended to serve for another town or, even more simply, they are of little avail since the present amount of trucks have already met the demand for the town.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that EZ does possess the capability to provide satisfying services.  Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding with the inclination of the local residents and the differences between the two companies.

开头还是复述题目了，北美范文上好像也是复述，不知道到底能不能。
这是第三次作业了，大家加油啊！:victory:

AnddieUID: 2135826

听取了kitty的意见，本文多用复合句

提纲：
1．调查的范围，数量未知;满意不代表值得多付钱
2．收得次数多不一定必要
3．卡车数量多不代表运量多,也不代表都会投入使用

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal, the one that has had the contract for trash collection services for the past ten years, instead of switching to ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ, although charges $500 more than ABC, collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. He also cites a fact that EZ, which used to have the same number of trucks as ABC, has ordered more of them. Finally, the arguer points out that EZ provides exceptional service that helped them to get 80 percent of respondents’ satisfaction, according to a survey last year. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide the information and quantity of the respondents.  Thus it is quite reasonable if we doubt that the survey was carried out in a special group of people who are easy to get satisfied with EZ’s service or the survey was not based on a scientific evaluating method and a large number of samples. In this case, the survey does not qualify for representing the overall attitude that most people holds toward EZ Disposal. Moreover, even if the survey succeed in showing people’s like of EZ, nor is it able to prove that EZ wins such more satisfaction than ABC does that it deserves the extra $500 the council will pay. Before clarifying all above, the survey is not valid and well-grounded enough to become a support of the arguer’s proposition.

In addition, it is still doubtable that the fact that EZ collects trash once more than ABC is what the town requires. That is to say, since it is not stated in the argument the size and population of the town, it is possible that the town doesn’t need an additional weekly collection of trash at all, because it does not produce such a large amount of trash every week. Hence, it does not matter whether EZ collects trash twice a week or ABC collects once.

Finally, the more trucks that EZ will have does not lead to an inevitability that EZ is able to collects more trash than ABC does. On one hand, the arguer fails to illustrate the types and sizes of the two companies’ trucks, so we may suppose that all the truck that ABC has are large-sized while both EZ’s new and old trucks are middle-sized or, what is worse, small-sized, a condition leaves it unknown to us which company collects more trash at a time. On the other hand, I am still wondering whether EZ will use all its trucks during one collection of trash in Walnut Grove’s town, for a company is always trying to reduce its costs to gain more profits.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would have to demonstrate the survey's persuasion and the trucks that EZ has is just what the town needs that would result in people’s more satisfaction. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-5-11 23:51 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

大家都写了好多啊。...

提綱：
1．        Abc和ez之間的比較錯誤。
a)        次數不等于效率
b)        買新車很有可能是因爲老化
2．        調查的滿意度不可信（10年内都是ez的服務，所以人們沒有可比的）
3．        市政府不會爲了區區500元錢就決定更換用了10年的服務，可能有其他原因。

The author of this letter to the editor contends Walnut Grove's town council had made a wrong decision for switching the trash collection service from ABC Waste to EZ Disposal. To justify this contention the author cites some advantages to support EZ's service. However, the author's argument specious on several flaws:

To begin with, the author made two fallacious comparisons about trash collection services between ABC Waste and EZ Disposal. First, the frequency of the service indicates an inefficiency of the trash collections of EZ Disposal. As a common sense, even ABC collects trash twice as EZ does in one week, the daily trash of every household will still remain an almost equally amount as usual. Therefore, to collect trash twice a week might reasonable shows the service of EZ is not as efficient as ABC does. Second, yet absent the reasons why EZ has to order more trucks for the trash service, that possibly because their tracks were out of date during EZ's ten-years services time, and without renew the old truck, only to ordered additions might helps less for the performance in the further service.

The author also made a fallacious conclusion that EZ provides exceptional service according to the last year's town survey. As this letter had mentioned, EZ Disposal has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten year, in this period, there is no comparison of other services could be consider at here. Therefore, the results of 80 percent of the responders in the survey agree the 'satisfied' with EZ's performance cannot be stand as a persuasive one. Moreover, without supporting information, this survey also fails to indicate that EZ provides more expectable service than ABC Waste.

Furthermore, the author of this letter hasty concludes that Walnut Grove's town council decided to switch to ABC Disposal is because EZ recently raised its monthly fee for 500 dollars. As the service for all the trash collection around whole town, 500 dollars only in a small chance to be the significant issue in the way to push the council made such decision for a ten-years old service provider. Therefore, it might be other reasons rather than this author mentioned in his letter, causing Walnut Grove's town council switched trash collection service from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste.

To sum up, the argument made by the author of this letter is not well support. To strengthen it, the author must show the evidence that the service of EZ is actually better than ABC and also the real reason that Walnut Grove's town council made the decision on the service switching.   (438 words)

yuviUID: 2169411

发现这篇ARGU有很强的误导性 阿...
同主题里分析的,还有北美里也是..
写完脑袋都打结了.明天再来看.
:(

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

呀，我看成ARGUMENT 7了！下次再补上可以吗？

7.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."

在下一次市长选举中，Clearview的市应投Good Earth Coalition成员Ann Green的票，而不是Clearview市委成员Frank Braun，因为当前的市委成员没有保护我们的环境。举例来说，去年Clearview的工厂数量翻了一番，空气污染水平增加了，而且当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％。如果我们选举Ann Green，Clearview的环境问题肯定将被解决。

(1)认为C市环境变差了，没有足够依据。工厂数量增加、呼吸道疾病患者增加不能代表当地环境恶化。增加的工厂是何种类型？增加了多少？疾病是先天性还是后天引发的？作者都没有交代。
（2)认为当前市委成员没有保护我们的环境，没有依据。政府治理污染的态度是什么。他们是为了发展当地经济而以环境为代价吗？还是也进行了积极的防污、治污工作。有没有制定相应的法律？并且法律的实行也不是短期就能显示效果。同时治理污染问题是每一个社会成员应关注的。。
（3）推选a没有充分依据。不能只看他属于哪个组织，还要考察候选人的能力、经验、知识，以及是否有相应改善环境的计划。
   应进行详细的调查研究，如采集空气标本与当地历史数据进行比较，观测环境的改变。同时，公平对待候选人，选择能切实改善环境的那位。还要提高自身环保意识，协助政府搞好环境。


In this argument, the author recommended to vote for Ann Green  instead of Frank Braun in the next mayoral election. To support his claim, he cited the following facts(1)Since Frank being the council, the air pollution level has increased;(2)Ann has taken part in the good earth coalition, a kind of organizing addressing protecting environment, while Frank is only a member of the town council;(3)The environmental problems wouldn't be solved unless we elect Ann as the mayor of Clearview. Close scrutiny of each fact, however, reveals that none of them lend credible reason to the recommendation.

To begin with, the arguer failed to give us sufficient evidence to validate his judgment that the environment has been destroyed during the last year. The conclusion unjustifiably based on the example that the number of factories and patients with respiratory illness. Only these factors do not necessary lead to air pollution. One the one hand, common sense tells us that not all the factories can destroy environment. One the other hand, are the increasing patients caused by polluted air. Lacking further information, such as what types of the new factories, where did they locate, what's the diagnosis from the hospital,  it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

Secondly, the judgment that the current council had not protect town environment is short of legitimacy. We have on information concerning the council's attitude towards the pollution comparing with the former. Did the current give blind eye to pollution for sake of tax revenue? Had they carry some positive measures to tackle with this problem? Supposing the council had passed a certain law or regulation, it can’t be in operation in short time. What's more, curb the air pollution level is not mere the town council's resposibities. Every resident should play important role in fighting for some bad behaviors. Unfortunately we find no detail analysis in the argument.

Thirdly, the author commits a hasty generalization. Though Ann is the member of the food earth coaliton.It may be true that he has more awareness to protect the environment than Frank, however, it does not follow he can do better than Frankn.Other factors Ann's capacities, experience, knowledge structure should be considered before we draw a judgment. Since the author has not adequately responded to these concerns, his recommendation is untenable.

In sum, without solid information that the current should responsible for the air pollution and the warrant evidence that Ann will fit for the position, the argument can be rejected out of hand.

glxingUID: 2156425

大家看
kittywen_16 的发表时间，真是好准时啊，哈哈

glxingUID: 2156425

我昨天写的不太好，现在先用word检查一下，待会发上来，迟到违反组规了，给大家道个歉

yuviUID: 2169411

这次加上交错作业的人才5个..汗
互改顺序如下:

天边一朵云 <--- yuvi
yuv i<--- jiqixueyuan
jiqixueyuan <--- Anddie
anddie <--- 天边一朵云

kitty因为写错了文章所以没有办法安排互改,
如果你后面这篇写完了就和小蜗牛互相改一下吧

yuviUID: 2169411

改云MM的,为了共同进步着想,大家拍文章就狠一点吧..呵呵:):)

Argument 17  
617 words

提纲：1）住户不一定在乎一周收垃圾的次数 (這個。。可以換个不显得那么牵强的说法把)     
2）住户对EZ满意不排除对ABC更满意的可能
      3）调查数据不可靠（从提纲看，感觉2，3可以合并，因为都是说调查，而且调查的数据专门安排一段好象有点浪费了。。）
      4）卡车增多不代表服务质量好
（感觉逻辑错误的安排条理不是很清楚。。是按先后顺序排列的呢，还是重点到次要的顺序排的呢？）
In this analysis, the arguer intends to prove that Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ disposal for trash collection services which has had contract for trash collection services for the past ten years, instead of switching to ABC waste. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that although EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000, it provides the trash- collecting services twice a  week ,in excess of that by ABC Waste. Another pieces of evidence presented to support the argument is that EZ has ordered more trucks ,making the amount of the trucks it possessed exceed that of ABC. In addition, he cites the result of a last year's survey that 80 percent of respondents showed their satisfaction towards  EZ's performance. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.
（云MM第一段就写了150个字，而且这一段所占的篇幅是全文里最大的。现实考试里，可能没办法花这么多精力来重复题目吧。北美范文是不支持重述原文的，因为太花时间了。）
In the first place, the arguer fails to provide evidence about whether residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged（大家应该更关心收垃圾的频率是否有效率吧？1个区1个月多收500，关心钱的人应该不太可能。。恩，我是这样想的）. Will the residents of Walnut Grove's town produce such a large amount of trash that services twice a week are necessary and worth while the increase of the monthly fee? The answer perhaps is no. It is possible that people would rather pay for a relative low price than receive the extra and unneeded services ,deeming it as  waste of money and lack of efficiency.（这里都在反驳钱的问题，和提纲不符阿。。）

In the second place, the fact that many residents are satisfied with EZ's performance does not eliminate the possibility that these residents will be just as, if not more, satisfied with ABC's performance. The arguer provides no convincible comparison between the two companies in aspects such as services, techniques, credit except that EZ collects trash once more than ABC. Moreover, due to the fact that EZ has been serving the town for ten years, it is more than likely （more likely）that the residents have no idea of whether there are better services than that of EZ, for they do not have other choices. So it is quite unfair to suggest that the town should not switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste.（恩，十年都是同一个服务，所以没有可比性）
What further weakens the argument is that the statistical evidence upon which the argument relies is too vague to be informative. On the first hand, the arguer provides no evidence that the survey represents the opinions of the masses in the town, as a matter of fact that people who are unsatisfied with EZ did not respond to the survey, thus invalidating the result of it. On the other hand, take it for granted that these opinions are typical among the residents, the survey was conducted last year when the fee has not been raised. No one can assure that the result will not reverse in this year's situation.（这个调查本身有必要花费长文来写吗？我觉得调查是次要的东西，因为错误太明显了。。大家讨论一下吧。 ）

Last but not least, the arguer mentions an increase in the amount of trucks in EZ to support the argument, while fails to point out whether the extra trucks will be used in Walnut Grove's town.（有这个可能，如果按照这个思路我们还可以说ABC的车和EZ的车本身不同等等） We can not rule out the possibility that these trucks are intended to serve for another town or, even more simply, they are of little avail since the present amount of trucks have already met the demand for the town. （基本同意）

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that EZ does possess the capability to provide satisfying services.  Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding with the inclination of the local residents and the differences between the two companies.

总结：

云MM的作业每个观点都写得很清楚。语言也很好。但我同意第二和第四个。然后就是调查的也许可以整合为一段来写。
因为第一个钱的问题似乎不是那么重要，而第三个我觉得没有必要那么详细地列出来（考虑错误的明显性）
另外说一下，这个论坛里有个系列的文章是专门讲写argument里什么论点应该拿来反驳，叫“argument应该这样写”大家可以去搜索看一下。
还有，我的这篇写的也不好，如果拍的有错误，请指正哈。

yuviUID: 2169411

这个是"argument应该这样写(一)"的地址:
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-412534-1-1.html

共三个系列,我看完之后收获挺大,所以推荐给大家.:)

天边一朵云UID: 2157330

谢谢小芹菜哟！你拍得越狠我越高兴，呵呵。先占个位子，一会儿再来仔细看

glxingUID: 2156425

对不起，下午突然有急事，现在才写完，实在对不起。
TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
提纲：1，EZ 收两次垃圾不一定好，可能他们效率低
      2，EZ 的垃圾车不一定质量好，ABC未必没订购
      3，为什么EZ要涨价，老百姓能接受吗？
      4，调查问题取样是否够多，是否随机，回答是否诚实，blablabla，未必ABC的调查不好
"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 author advises the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper that the town should continue using EZ collects trash for several reasons, however, close scrutiny of the author's line of reasoning shows that there are some logical mistakes as follows.

First of all, the author equals that EZ collects trash twice a week with the conclusion that EZ’s service is better than the ABC, however, the author does not mention whether the ABC's one time of trash-collection is enough for the town. If so, why EZ has to collects trash twice? It is possible that they are low in efficiency. Without excluding the possibility that the final results of two companies are the same, the author can not use this as evidence.

Secondly, the author's description about two companies' trucks is too cursory to be convincing. I t is said that EZ, like ABC, has a fleet of 20 trucks as well, but are these trucks as advanced as ABC's? After all, different kinds of trucks are various in efficiency and quality of service. Also, the additional trucks that EZ has ordered are possibly not bought for the purpose of using in the Walnut Grove town. More importantly, the author does not mention whether the ABC has the same or even better plans about buying additional trucks.

Thirdly, the author does not give any explanation why EZ raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, so we have to worry the rationality of the rise of fee. Even if the EZ may improve its services actually, the residents may not accept the change, after all, it is those residents that pay for the fee of trash collecting.

Last but not the least, the survey cited in the argument is not convincing enough because the author does not give any information to prove the reliability of the survey, for example, Is this a random sample? Is the number of respondents is able to represent overall residents? Are the respondents honest when they answer the questions? What's more, the respondents were "satisfied" with the service of EZ can not show that EZ should not be employed again because the author has not make similar convey about ABC. It is possible that the respondence about ABC’s service is better than EZ.

In sum, the argument fails to convince us that EZ should be used to collect trash as it stands. To strengthen the assertion, the author should give more clear analyze about the two companies to demonstrate the EZ is qualified to be used again and promise that the residents can accept the EZ’s rise of fee.

AnddieUID: 2135826

PK：


提纲:
一、EZ提供的额外服务的调查不具有代表性.
二、没有证据表明WG城市需要额外的卡车来收集垃圾。
三、论者没有提供WG城市的垃圾数量，不能仅仅通过EZ或者ABC收集垃圾的次数来的出结论。


This argument concludes that Walnut Grove's town council should continue to employ EZ. To justify this, the author mentions that ABC's fee is 2,000 dollars but EZ's is 2,500 dollars, [这个是作者justify的理由?] the times of collecting trash concerning EZ and ABC through trucks,[这句建议再改通顺一下] and a survey about exceptional service provided by EZ. However, this argument has several flaws ,as follows.[恩,模板,nod]

Firstly, the survey regarding[regards] exceptional service provided by EZ is not representative. To begin with, the author has no evidence to show what exceptional service supplied by EZ  is , it is possible that this exceptional service only is a new deal between EZ and other company, such as EZ uses its trucks to provide transportation for other company, and obtain additional rewards, but the fee used to supply service to other company is contained in the increasing fee EZ ask for Walnut Grove's town council.[首先,从to begin with到这里应该用多个句子写,或用从句,英语中相互独立的单句要必须用句号或分号隔开。其次，以上的内容完全脱离题目，完全是你的想象，这样的论证是没有说服力的。] Additionally, the author does not provide sufficient datum about the sum[sum可以修饰可数名词？] of respondents and the relationship[在语法上，relationship承接的是the datum about] between respondents and EZ,[.] we do not exclude that there are only few respondents having taken part in this survey, and it is also probable that respondents have [had] close relationship with EA, maybe [whether] the  relationship is direct of[or?] indirect.[从第一句看,本段主要讲survey的可靠性.可前半部分确只讲公司的关系,离题了.]

Secondly, the author fails to afford[?] information to indicate that Walnut Grove's town needs additional trucks to collect trash. To begin with,[换个词组] the author does not  refer[一定加to] how many[much]  trash of Walnut Grove's town are,[语法问题] perhaps the amount of trash are much  fewer,[less] [less than what?] it  is not necessary to purchase these additional trucks to collect trash.[题目中没有说新卡车是专门为这个town买的啊,购买是公司的决定,不是本题的错误.] Moreover, these additional trucks are used to do other things rather than to collect trash.[本句应用possible] If so, the author serves[换个词] it as a reason to support his or her opinion about continuing to use EZ.[本段基本符合要求,nod]

Thirdly, the author fails to offer the numbers[amount] of trash in Walnut Grove's town, and can not conclude this conclusion[罗嗦] of using EZ only by the times every week  EZ or ABC collects trash.[本句语法乱了] In the first place,[可是后面没有in the second place] if the numbers[…] of trash are very small, collecting trash only needs[谁need] once a week, moreover, the fee provided to EZ higher than the fee supplied to ABC, so Walnut Grove's town council is reasonable to suggest using ABC to replace EZ to collect trash, if so, Walnut Grove's town council can use these saved money to do other good things ,for example, they can use these money to improve the  equipments of public use and raise citizens' level of lives and so forth.[moreover后面又离题了,这是你的建议,而不是原文的逻辑错误]

In sum, this argument fails to persuade me in several aspects, if enhancing [to enhance]the persuasion, the author should afford[provide] the sum of trash in Walnut Grove's town and respondents joined in the survey, what exceptional service furnished by EZ is, the usage of the additional trucks, and even the real reason EZ raises its fee.[结尾有点草率]

[总结：
1．        首先是语言问题：
A．        多个独立的单句不能简单地用逗号连接就完了，一定要分开来写
B．        作者应该加强词语的运用，尤其是句中关键的动词；在套用句式时要先搞清句子的意思
C．        语法
2．        Arg要求批判原文的逻辑错误，而不是建议或对结论发表你的看法；要严格依据文章提供的事实
3．        全文结构不错]