argument17 『加州阳光小组』lastpearl第三次作业

lastpearlUID: 2119955

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."

1.也许每星期收拾一次垃圾就足够了，两次是多余的。虽然这多出的50%的服务只多收了25%的费用，但对于市民来说都是一种浪费。
2. 论断说E最近新添了卡车，还会提供更多的服务。但这两者之间却没有明显的因果关系。
3．调查样本不具有代表性，未说明回应率。
4．论断认为E更好所以还要用E，结论做得太草率。

     
The letter recommends that the Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ which has had the contract for trash collection services for the past ten years rather than ABC Waste. To justify this recommendation the author cites that EZ collect trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author notes a recent survey to testify that the citizen was satisfied with EZ’s performance. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author’s assertion.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once is insufficient evidence unless the author can justify that the town needs the service twice a week. Yet the author provides no evidence to prove it. Maybe collects trash once a week is suffice, twice is unwanted. It is a waste of money to the citizen notwithstanding the 50 percent of redundant service only accepts 25 percent of expense.  

Secondly, there is no data available, however, to support any causal relation between the additional trucks which has ordered by EZ and the added service provides by EZ. The author fails to provide evidence to justify the new trucks will be used to collect trash in the Walnut Grove town, so it cannot conclude that there is a possibility that EZ expands new operation. For example, these trucks were to be used in other cities which call for a lot of assistance. Thus, the further service cannot come true. And that, whether need additional trucks is uncertain, if the trucks which already existed are adequate, order additional trucks is superfluous. Moreover, although the trucks have been ordered, there is no evidence to manifest when the EZ can accept these trucks.

Thirdly, the author provides no evidence that the survey’s responders are representative of the overall group of people who have received the service from EZ. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that only people who satisfied with the service of EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Furthermore, the survey does not reveal that people would like to pay the additional 25 percent of expense. The author does not mention the service of ABC, such as credit, technology, and so an, except for the once trash collection every week. Maybe contrast with EZ, the service of ABC is better. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions.

Finally, the author draws a hasty conclusion that the walnut Grove town should continue using EZ, based on inadequate evidence about the service of EZ is better than ABC’s. The judgment even does not provide the reason that EZ raise its fee abruptly. Maybe the contract which lasts ten years render EZ does not feel the pressure of furious competition, and they raise the price. In addition, the finance stats of government are the key to decide whether accept the unwanted expense. Maybe government has other more urgent things which need a lot of money, thus, cannot accept the raise of money.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. The author request the government accept the high-priced service of trash collection is unreasoned and unfair. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, the author should provide the reason that EZ raise its fee and the service which EZ can provide in future. Otherwise, thee need of citizen and the finance stats of government is need to realize.


时间仓促，敬请拍砖啊:)

[ 本帖最后由 lastpearl 于 2006-6-17 17:00 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

格式不对。请修改，不然被删就不好了

lixiaomin046400UID: 2207959

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."

1.也许每星期收拾一次垃圾就足够了，两次是多余的。虽然这多出的50%的服务只多收了25%的费用，但对于市民来说都是一种浪费。
2. 论断说E最近新添了卡车，还会提供更多的服务。但这两者之间却没有明显的因果关系。
3．调查样本不具有代表性，未说明回应率。
4．论断认为E更好所以还要用E，结论做得太草率。

     
The letter recommends that the Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ which has had the contract for trash collection services for the past ten years rather than ABC Waste. To justify this recommendation the author cites that EZ collect trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author notes a recent survey to testify that the citizen was satisfied with EZ’s performance. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author’s assertion.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once is insufficient evidence unless the author can justify that the town needs the service twice a week. Yet the author provides no evidence to prove it. Maybe collects trash once a week is suffice（sufficient）, twice is unwanted. It is a waste of money to the citizen notwithstanding the 50 percent of redundant service only accepts 25 percent of expense.  

Secondly, there is no data available, however, to support any causal relation between the additional trucks which has ordered by EZ and the added service provides（provided） by EZ. The author fails to provide evidence to justify the new trucks will be used to collect trash in the Walnut Grove town, so it cannot conclude that there is a possibility that EZ expands new operation. For example, these trucks were to be used in other cities which call for a lot of assistance. Thus, the further service cannot come true. And that, whether need additional trucks is uncertain, if the trucks which already existed are adequate, order additional trucks is superfluous. Moreover, although the trucks have been ordered, there is no evidence to manifest when the EZ can accept these trucks.

Thirdly, the author provides no evidence that the survey’s responders are representative of the overall group of people who have received the service from EZ. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that only people who satisfied with the service of EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Furthermore, the survey does not reveal that people would like to pay the additional 25 percent of expense. The author does not mention the service of ABC, such as credit, technology, and so an, except for the once trash collection every week. Maybe contrast with EZ, the service of ABC is better. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions.

Finally, the author draws a hasty conclusion that the walnut Grove town should continue using EZ, based on inadequate evidence about the service of EZ is better than ABC’s. The judgment even does not provide the reason that EZ raise its fee abruptly. Maybe the contract which lasts ten years render EZ does not feel the pressure of furious competition, and they raise the price. In addition, the finance stats of government are the key to decide whether accept the unwanted expense. Maybe government has other more urgent things which need a lot of money, thus, cannot accept the raise of money.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. The author request the government accept the high-priced service of trash collection is unreasoned and unfair. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, the author should provide the reason that EZ raise its fee and the service which EZ can provide in future. Otherwise, thee（the） need of citizen and the finance stats of government is need to realize.

很好啊，思路挺宽，也很流畅，加油

leaf99UID: 2174003

The letter recommends that the Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ which has had the contract for trash collection services for the past ten years rather than ABC Waste. To justify this recommendation the author cites that EZ collect trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author notes a recent survey to testify that the citizen was satisfied with EZ’s performance. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author’s assertion.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once is insufficient evidence unless the author can justify that the town needs the service twice a week. Yet the author provides no evidence to prove it. Maybe collects（collecting） trash once a week is suffice(sufficient), twice is unwanted. It is a waste of money to the citizen notwithstanding the 50 percent of redundant service only accepts 25 percent of expense. (我觉得这段论证有些单调，翻来覆去都是一个意思。给点例子，给点想象，给点活力吧。。。)

Secondly, there is no data available, however（however放在这里实在不妥，句首吧）, to support any causal relation between the additional trucks which has ordered by EZ and the added service provides by EZ. The author fails to provide evidence to justify the new trucks will be used to collect trash in the Walnut Grove town, so it cannot conclude that there is a possibility that EZ expands new operation. For example, these trucks were to be used in other cities which call for a lot of assistance. Thus, the further service cannot come true（dreams能come true,service不行）. And that, whether need additional trucks is uncertain, if the trucks which already existed are adequate, order additional trucks is superfluous. Moreover, although the trucks have been ordered, there is no evidence to manifest when the EZ can accept these trucks.

Thirdly, the author provides no evidence that the survey’s responders（respondents） are representative of the overall group of people who have received the service from EZ. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that only people who (去掉who)satisfied with the service of EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Furthermore, the survey does not reveal that people would like to pay the additional 25 percent of expense. The author does not mention the service of ABC, such as credit, technology, and so an, except for the once trash collection every week. Maybe contrast with EZ, the service of ABC is better. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions.（这段里怎么那么多层意思，建议分开论述，大杂烩老美最怕了）

Finally, the author draws a hasty conclusion that the walnut Grove town should continue using EZ, based on inadequate evidence about（assumption that） the service of EZ is better than ABC’s. The judgment even does not provide the reason that EZ raise its fee abruptly. Maybe the contract which lasts ten years render EZ does not feel the pressure of furious competition, and they raise the price. In addition, the finance stats of government are the key to decide whether accept the unwanted expense. Maybe government has other more urgent things(things是个非常显示辞穷的word，不要用) which need a lot of money（同上）, thus, cannot accept the raise of money（cost, fee, expense，为什么要用money）.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. The author request the government（哪有政府？town council） accept the high-priced service of trash collection is unreasoned and unfair. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, the author should provide the reason that EZ raise its fee and the service which EZ can provide in future. Otherwise, thee need of citizen and the finance stats of government is need to realize.

总体：语言问题还挺多的，慢慢改。论证第二部分需要修改。

请修改叶子的第三篇argument17
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1768722102