argument17 ［加州阳光］第三次作业 ＦＯＲＭ ７２８交完作业去跑步锻炼身体～

728AWUID: 2216408

--------------------------------------------ＴＯＰＩＣ----------------------------------------------------------
"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."
--------------------------------------------提纲------------------------------------------------------------------
1.新手ABC很有可能和精力比老手EZ做的好
2.没必要收集两次垃圾,这样更浪费钱
3.还是SURVEY的老问题,TAKERS参与人是否占整个TOWN的大多数,还有是否有比"satisfied"更好的一个选项,而TAKERS选那个作为对ABC的评价
-----------------------------------------------TIME  AND WORDS--------------------------------------------
45 MIN  432 WORDS
-------------------------------------正文-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this letter, based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author hastily generalizes that Walnut Grove town should switching to ABC waste. Before making any conclusion, the following points in this letter should be reconsidered.
Firstly, EZ Disposal has provided the service for collecting Walnut Grove town for over the last 10 years, whereas ABC is a relatively new trash collection company to Walnut Grove. From common sense we could conclude that ABC Waste has a better potential in the trash collecting business than EZ disposal, because a newer has more potential and vigor that old ones.
Secondly, from the author’s point of view, the reason that switching to ABC Waste is mostly because that EZ has raised its fee due to it provided twice trash collecting service than ever before. So the cost is deserved to the rising payment. However, the author fails to provide the information that the dwellers in Walnut Grove need an additional trash collecting. On the basis of frequency of collection it would make no sense to favor EZ's costlier service over ABC's less expensive one.
The last but not the least, the conclusion unreasonably relies on the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied" with EZ's performance. The survey cited is too vague to be informative. The claim does not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the reliability of that survey, because it fail to indicate what other ranks in that survey and the rate of the people who take the survey in all of the residents in Walnut Grove town. Without any information about the survey, there might be another rank which listed ahead of "satisfied" in the survey and that is most of people choose for ABC. To make a persuasive conclusion, it would be necessary that the respondents in the survey must be the ones who have some experience with both EZ and ABC.
To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To make the argument logical acceptable, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: the evidence that use the service that has been used for 10 years will be much better than the new comer ABC, the need to trash collecting twice and more information about the survey takers . If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

stone_lueUID: 2154056

In this letter, based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author hastily generalizes that Walnut Grove town should switching to ABC waste. Before making any conclusion, the following points in this letter should be reconsidered.（清晰 简练）
Firstly, EZ Disposal has provided the service for collecting Walnut Grove town for over the last 10 years, whereas ABC is a relatively new trash collection company to Walnut Grove. From common sense we could conclude that ABC Waste has a better potential in the trash collecting business than EZ disposal, because a newer has more potential and vigor that old ones.（个人认为理由补充分）
Secondly, from the author’s point of view, the reason that switching to ABC Waste is mostly because that EZ has raised its fee due to it provided twice trash collecting service than ever before. So the cost is deserved to the rising payment. However, the author fails to provide the information that the dwellers in Walnut Grove need an additional trash collecting. On the basis of frequency of collection it would make no sense to favor EZ's costlier service over ABC's less expensive one.
The last but not the least, the conclusion unreasonably relies on the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied" with EZ's performance. The survey cited is too vague to be informative. The claim does not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the reliability of that survey, because it fail to indicate what other ranks in that survey and the rate of the people who take the survey in all of the residents in Walnut Grove town. Without any information about the survey, there might be another rank which listed ahead of "satisfied" in the survey and that is most of people choose for ABC. To make a persuasive conclusion, it would be necessary that the respondents in the survey must be the ones who have some experience with both EZ and ABC.
To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To make the argument logical acceptable, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: the evidence that use the service that has been used for 10 years will be much better than the new comer ABC, the need to trash collecting twice and more information about the survey takers . If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

全文写的很流畅，观点也比较清晰。感觉第四段知道你在说什么，但又好像离要害还差一点。不知道你是否同意我得观点。

benniUID: 2166321

占座...

joey.liuUID: 2207101

In this letter, based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author hastily generalizes that Walnut Grove town should switching to ABC waste. Before making any conclusion, the following points in this letter should be reconsidered.
Firstly, EZ Disposal has provided the service for collecting Walnut Grove town for over the last 10 years, whereas ABC is a relatively new trash collection company to Walnut Grove. From common sense we could conclude that ABC Waste has a better potential in the trash collecting business than EZ disposal, because a newer has more potential and vigor that old ones.(我觉得这段理由不充分，即然Grove town以前十年都是跟EZ合作的，我们知道越老的的客户合作的基础越牢固，而他们现在突然改变主意了，所以文章肯定有改变主意的没有标明的原因，我们也应该在这方面反驳）

Secondly, from the author’s point of view, the reason that switching to ABC Waste is mostly because that EZ has raised its fee due to it provided twice trash collecting service than ever before. So the cost is deserved to the rising payment. However, the author fails to provide the information that the dwellers in Walnut Grove need an additional trash collecting. On the basis of frequency of collection it would make no sense to favor EZ's costlier service over ABC's less expensive one.

The last but not the least, the conclusion unreasonably relies on the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied" with EZ's performance. The survey cited is too vague to be informative. The claim does not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the reliability of that survey, because it fail to indicate what other ranks in that survey and the rate of the people who take the survey in all of the residents in Walnut Grove town. Without any information about the survey, there might be another rank which listed ahead of "satisfied" in the survey and that is most of people choose for ABC. To make a persuasive conclusion, it would be necessary that the respondents in the survey must be the ones who have some experience with both EZ and ABC.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To make the argument logical acceptable, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: the evidence that use the service that has been used for 10 years will be much better than the new comer ABC, the need to trash collecting twice and more information about the survey takers . If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

其余段还不错，不过关于卡车数量的问题也是一个主要的攻击点，不要漏下哟。

mercurywaterUID: 2179090

In this letter, based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author hastily generalizes that Walnut Grove town should switching to ABC waste.[作者的观点是But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ，rather than switching to ABC waste, 你是不是题目没有理解透彻？] Before making any conclusion, the following points in this letter should be reconsidered.

Firstly, EZ Disposal has provided the service for collecting Walnut Grove town for over the last 10 years, whereas ABC is a relatively new trash collection company to Walnut Grove. From common sense we could conclude that ABC Waste has a better potential in the trash collecting business than EZ disposal, because a newer has more potential and vigor that old ones.[每段话最好有个Topic Sentence,如果你想表达这个意思，可以把这段的最后一句放在第一句]

Secondly, from the author’s point of view, the reason that switching to ABC Waste is mostly because that EZ has raised its fee due to it provided twice trash collecting service than ever before. So the cost is deserved to the rising payment. However, the author fails to provide the information that the dwellers in Walnut Grove need an additional trash collecting. On the basis of frequency of collection it would make no sense to favor EZ's costlier service over ABC's less expensive one.
The last but not the least, the conclusion unreasonably relies on the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied" with EZ's performance. The survey cited is too vague to be informative. The claim does not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the reliability of that survey, because it fail to indicate what other ranks[percentage] in that survey and the rate of the people who take the survey in all of the residents in Walnut Grove town. Without any information about the survey, there might be another rank which listed ahead of "satisfied" in the survey and that is most of people choose for ABC. To make a persuasive conclusion, it would be necessary that the respondents in the survey must be the ones who have some experience with both EZ and ABC.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To make the argument logical acceptable, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: the evidence that use the service that has been used for 10 years will be much better than the new comer ABC, the need to trash collecting twice and more information about the survey takers . If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

总觉得你的第一个better potential的论证是不是能站得住脚，其实还可以从EZ has ordered additional trucks是否都用于trash collection services 或者也可以从 ABC 是否同时也买了很多车，并且比EZ作得还要好的角度论证
我觉得你在限时的情况下写出这样的文章已经很不简单了，加油！