argument17 义无反顾小组第三次作业

AnddieUID: 2135826

glxing你跟viking互改啊

glxingUID: 2156425

viking在哪里？
唉，再一次向芹菜和大家道歉，影响了进度，so sorry、、、

yuviUID: 2169411

原帖由 Anddie 于 2006-5-12 20:18 发表
glxing你跟viking互改啊

viking 还没有交作业阿..
小蜗牛和kitty改吧..(但是kitty写错了作业,这篇还没有补:L)

ralcUID: 2206404

我在这里 两天没上网的结果……没事 今晚肯定补完

glxingUID: 2156425

芹菜，帮你改改吧，改的很粗啊，算是讨论吧。

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. 这一句不是太懂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yet absent the reasons why EZ has to order more trucks for the trash service, that possibly because their tracks were out of date during EZ's ten-years services time, and without renew the old truck, only to ordered additions might helps less for the performance in the further service.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.
我特别想知道EZ答应提供额外服务和调查之间的关系，是因为调查结果不错，EZ一高兴，决定“买一赠一搞促销”吗？还是想拉拢人心？不过，从第二句话中“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.”没看明白。

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.我和你在这一观点上大相径庭：我把居委会的原因当成了一个客观事实，就是承认它确实因为涨价而改变，然后攻击其他观点。比如说，如果继续用原来的垃圾公司，居民是否愿意多掏这份钱？

还有，我觉得调查还是可以单独一段的，毕竟那是ETS上给我们的肥肉，干吗不吃？

AnddieUID: 2135826

只看了“argument应该这样写(一)”
后面的找不到了
谈一点意见啊

个人觉得作者的观点没错:错误攻击应该从主到次
但他后面的分析有问题

首先，“Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. ”绝对不是前提，而是假设,是医生的猜测，题目第二句话也提到是“hypothesis”。

第二，后面的实验所证明的正是这个假设，注意到第一句话中的"suspected" "may" "some"和第二句话中的"This hypothesis".题目用两个对照组,因为实验只是一少部分病人,所以不能证明最后一句话中"all".

更确切的说:题目认为实验证明了第一句话，同时也证明了最后一句
                而不是实验证明了第一句话，第一句话导出了最后一句
因此,therefore是针对实验来说的,而不是针对第一句的假设就therefore了.

最主要的逻辑错误是:实验并不能证明结论"Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment".
应该首先攻击的还是实验,而不是开始的一句

其实攻击第一句也要用到实验例子

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-5-12 22:18 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

帮小蜗牛先改一下..

提纲：1，EZ 收两次垃圾不一定好，可能他们效率低(同意)
      2，EZ 的垃圾车不一定质量好，ABC未必没订购(前一点同意,后一点是题目明确告诉我们的阿..)     
3，为什么EZ要涨价，老百姓能接受吗？ (觉得涨价不必再这里说事八..1个月1个town500元,让老百姓接受应该不会是太大的问题..)      
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(诚实拿在这里说好象有点牵强...)

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. (完全同意)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.(这里之前都同意) 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.(超出题目以外的假设作为反驳论据有点勉强)

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.(一个市每月多付500块钱..平均到每住户会是个big deal吗?)

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(这个词感觉不合适喔) 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. (恩,值得怀疑,但是好象没有必要花这么多笔墨哈..)

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.



总结:

前提是1个市每月收垃圾的价钱上涨,有必要来拿涨价说事吗??我觉得完全不必要阿..
疑惑..我觉得这个题目的重点应该是把握10年这个客观因素吧.
小蜗牛讨论了很多题目里没有提到的外在假设(比如ABC未必没订购新车,调查者是否诚实,等等)感觉不够严谨哈..
好的方面是结构清楚,论点安排主次分明.

PS:下次要是有事就先交一个详细提纲吧(在规定时间之前),然后私下和要改你文章的同学打个招呼,后面再来补全.不然再违反规定大家一视同仁哈.加油加油

yuviUID: 2169411

晕头了..viking出来了..汗..刚刚改了小组名单,真不好意思.
你赶紧补作业吧,我们也不想把你踢出去的..(实在是因为小组的章程规定了不遵守,难以服众)
这个星期算做磨合期..所以给viking一个机会(补作业+保证以后不会无故迟交),不知道其他人有没有意见?

yuviUID: 2169411

小蜗牛,和你讨论下,
我第一段的第一点说的是,EZ收两次垃圾也表示它的效率没有ABC高，因为每户每周产生的生活垃圾数目都是差不多的.而ABC用一次就收完了,所以我们可以推断它的效率会比较高.

我特别想知道EZ答应提供额外服务和调查之间的关系，是因为调查结果不错，EZ一高兴，决定“买一赠一搞促销”吗？还是想拉拢人心？不过，从第二句话中“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.”没看明白。

汗.你的想象力很丰富啊.(我表达的也不清楚).我的意思是说,调查不能说明EZ能提供更好的服务,因为这个市用EZ的服务已经10年了,没有其他公司的比较,所以即使有80%的人同意也不能说明什么.这句话就是这个意思

我和你在这一观点上大相径庭：我把居委会的原因当成了一个客观事实，就是承认它确实因为涨价而改变，然后攻击其他观点。比如说，如果继续用原来的垃圾公司，居民是否愿意多掏这份钱？

这个钱不多啊,为什么要反驳一些常识性的东西呢?
难道市政府会小气到为了500块钱就和10年的老东家翻脸??我觉得10年是个隐含的客观因素,把握这个ETS给的思路要比攻击谁都知道的调查能够证明思想的严谨吧(虽然现在我也在摸索阶段)

还有，我觉得调查还是可以单独一段的，毕竟那是ETS上给我们的肥肉，干吗不吃？

这个理由同上,肥肉是好,但是没有必要因为肥肉就把主心骨给丢了拉..
我记得有个得高分的人写过,题目里明显的因素是因为ETS为拉开参加考试者的层次而故意设计的.所以我觉得没有必要花过多的精力来写一些特别明显的错误,因为是个人都知道它错在哪里..我再怎么写也只能做为辅助的提一下而已,证明我也有考虑到这点.但我不会把它作为主要错误来写,因为没有必要哈..考场上时间宝贵,精力有限..:)

不知道我说的对不对啊..感觉我们的argument也需要开个帖子讨论吧??

[ 本帖最后由 yuvi 于 2006-5-12 23:14 编辑 ]

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

好吧，我今天补上，不然没人给我改了：（

AnddieUID: 2135826

原帖由 jiqixueyuan 于 2006-5-13 01:16 发表
谢谢Anddie (AK-47)的拍打，不拍不知道，一拍吓一跳！
呵呵，改天好好跟大家讨论下，觉得还有好多东西需要学习！

呵呵，我也是乱拍，你批判的看吧
大家出来混都不容易。。。

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-5-13 18:28 编辑 ]

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

提议继续使用EZ缺乏说服力
(1)每周收集垃圾的次数多少并不能说明服务质量好。也许本地垃圾本身不多，一周一次就可以满足需求。
（2）E定购车辆不一定就能提高其服务质量。也许本身由于成立时间久了，车子需要更新，因此车子总数不变。其次是否用于垃圾回收，购买的是否是新车，作者没有讲明；
（3）调查的结果模糊。如果是EZ公司主持的调查，答复者是EZ的用户，调查没有可信度。
（4）否定市委提议过于简单。提高价格也许意味着提供更多服务。


The speaker argues that they should continue choose EZ as their trash collection services. To suppose his assertion, he compared several factors between EZ and ABC, another disposal company. Close scrutiny reveals, however, that the evidence provides little credible support for the speaker’s assertion.

To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week does mean that its service is inferior to ABC.It is very highly possible that there are not so much trash in the town that a collection a week will be appropriate for the residents. Furthermore, the author fails to tell us how the two companies offer service. If EZ divides the town into two areas, and collects each at half a week interval, the performance is equal with that of ABC. Without ruling out these alternative explanations, the author's judgment is out of credible.

Secondly, the argument unfairly rests on an assumption that 20 trucks ordered by EZ can improve its service. There is no evidence stated in the argument to support this assumption. First, as we known from the argument, EZ has been the trash collection service in walnut grove for the past ten years, it was established at least 10 years ago, and thus its trucks are entirely possible in bad conditions. As a result, this order of trucks may be used to substitute for the older ones. The number of trucks will not change. Secondly,the speaker does not give us compelling evidence to sustain that all trucks are used to collect trash. Even it is the case, it dose not show they are all new ones. It is highly possible that the EZ bought second-handed trucks in order to curb expenditure. If it is true, the additional trucks have little impact on improving its service. Deep down, On the other side, we don't know when the ABC established. If it is a new companies, equipped with more advertence devices, though it has the same quantity of trucks, the service it offers will better than that of EZ.

Thirdly, the survey cited in the argument is too vague to be informative. In order to draw a general conclusion, the samples should be chosen randomly and reprehensive for the whole residents' attitudes. Unfortunately, we find no sign of this procedure and we are not sure the result can reflects the opinions from the major habitants. If the survey was conducted by the EZ Company, and the samples were limited in customers of EZ, the survey will be echoed as the expected answers. Absent additional information about the survey, the result lends no credible support to the conclusion.

The author unjustifiably gives the judgment on the council's conclusion. Unless weight service quality against expenses, the author does not convince us that the council commit a fallacy.

Price is only one factor when we choose a trash service. Common sense and experience tell us, a variety of other factors such as service quality, equipments, even the professional knowledge of it workers are also play major roles. Without considering these factors that will play important roles in the competence of a trash collection company, it is nevertheless premature to assess the author's broad conclusion.


终于把这一篇给补上了。

ralcUID: 2206404

十分丢脸 又迟交了 马上写 改下一篇

Argument 17
The author of this letter dissent from the proposal advocated by Walnut Grove's town council, which suggests switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. As for author, a monthly extra $500 is worthy in exchange for a twice collection per week and the new trucks EZ has just ordered. The author also cites the result of a survey carried out last year. A careful examination of this letter would review how groundless the conclusion is.

The author based his claim partly on the fact that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week, while ABC Waste collect only once. However, the author provide no evident that the quality of trash agent is directly proportional to the frequency they collect trash. Lacking such evidence, it is equally possible that collect once a week is enough while twice is a waste of time and money. Things are not always the more the better, people should consider more thoroughly not just depend on commonsense.

To further support his claim, the author told us EZ ordered additional trucks. The arguer assumes these newly bought trucks will improve the quality of EZ Disposal's service, and certainly will surpass that of ABC Waste. In fact, it remains to be discussed. Why EZ ordered new trucks? For one thing, it is possible that old trucks owned by EZ had worn out, but ABC's trucks are most up-to-date. EZ brought up the fee to update their equipment that we can get more economically from ABC Waste. For another, it is also possible that the trucks EZ ordered are used to explore new client district, and will have nothing to do with the service quality in Walnut Grove. Without the reason and further use plan of the order, additional trucks will be nonsense in this argument.

At last, based on a survey last year, saying 80% of respondents satisfied with EZ's performance, the author conclude that EZ Waste provide exceptional service, superficially. The author provides no evidence that the survey's respondents are representative of the overall group of people in Walnut Grove. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people satisfied with EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. That's to say without providing the respondent rate or other evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot draw conclusion out of it.

To sum up, the author's advice is not based on sound reasoning. to better evaluate this proposal, we need more information concerning the town's real need about disposal and the purpose of EZ Disposal's order for new trucks. Further more the author should consider the economic situation of the government.

ralcUID: 2206404

kitty EZ有20辆 不是订购了20辆哦