Argument17 【加州阳光】第三次作业 stone 请猛拍

stone_lueUID: 2154056

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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."

In this letter, the author asserts that Walnut Grove's (WG) town council is mistaken that they should continue using EZ Disposal instead switching to ABC Waste. To support his viewpoint, he argues that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, EZ has ordered additional trucks and then cites the survey of last year to demonstrate his opinion. Carefully examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's claim.
   To begin with, the author argues that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. It seems that EZ’s service is better that ABC’s. However, it is entirely possible that EZ's collection effect twice a week is poorer than ABC's collection effect once a week. May be WG’s trash is comparatively small and does not to offer an extra collection. On account of ABC employee's high efficiency of work, it is no need to collect trash twice a week.
   Moreover, the author asserts that EZ has ordered additional trucks. But it is also unconvincing to support his viewpoint. Perhaps that the trash produced by WG’s citizen does not need to add more trucks. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that EZ could maintain a fleet of 20 trucks in order to save more money to either reduce its monthly fee or provide some additional service.
  In addition, the author cites a survey to support that EZ has an exceptional service, 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last years but does not provide some more clear evidence. It is highly possible that the left 20 percent of respondents who were not satisfied with EZ's performance mainly occurred in WG town. If so, WG’s town council’s switch from EZ to ABC is a sound decision.
  Finally, the author turns blind eyes to the fact that ABC's fee is cheaper than that of EZ. If WG's town council switches from EZ to ABC, then the council can save $500 monthly. WG can use the extra money to do something beneficial for local people.
  In the final analysis, the author can not provide some convincing evidence to support his viewpoint. To bolster it he must provide clearer materials. The author should demonstrate that extra $500 council pays can receive a better service from EZ than from ABC, and the EZ's collection effect is better than ABC's.

[ 本帖最后由 stone_lue 于 2006-6-16 21:38 编辑 ]

728AWUID: 2216408

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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."

In this letter, the author asserts that Walnut Grove's (WG) town council is mistaken that they should continue using EZ Disposal instead switching to ABC Waste. To support his viewpoint, he argues that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, EZ has ordered additional trucks and then cites the survey of last year to demonstrate his opinion. Carefully examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's claim.
关于开头,我看过IMONG写的一个文章讨论说ETS究竟让不让restate题目,最后结论是不让,说是ETS的话是"题目我们判卷人已经都知道了,没必要restate,除非你觉得对以下题目发展有意义(这种情况很少)"我看了这段话后也觉得很郁闷,不知道如果不restate的话究竟要如何开头.希望和stone还有咱组人讨论一下.
   To begin with, the author argues that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. It seems that EZ’s service is better that ABC’s. However, it is entirely possible that EZ's collection effect twice a week is poorer than ABC's collection effect once a week. May be WG’s trash is comparatively small and does not to offer an extra collection. On account of ABC employee's high efficiency of work, it is no need to collect trash twice a week.
   Moreover, the author asserts that EZ has ordered additional trucks. But it is also unconvincing to support his viewpoint. Perhaps that the trash produced by WG’s citizen does not need to add more trucks. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that EZ could maintain a fleet of 20 trucks in order to save more money to either reduce its monthly fee or provide some additional service.这句话很好~~喜欢~~
  In addition, the author cites a survey to support that EZ has an exceptional service, 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last years but does not provide some more clear evidence. It is highly possible(文中possible有点多,可以换个说法) (呵呵,这完全是挑不出错误了然后吹毛求疵的一个,如果不恰当请stone见谅哈)that the left 20 percent of respondents who were not satisfied with EZ's performance mainly occurred in WG town. If so, WG’s town council’s switch from EZ to ABC is a sound decision.
  Finally, the author turns blind eyes to the fact(嘿嘿,学到了一个短语~) that ABC's fee is cheaper than that of EZ. If WG's town council switches from EZ to ABC, then the council can save $500 monthly. WG can use the extra money to do something beneficial for local people.最后一段我持保留意见,感觉可以和第一段合并吧.意思都是说钱和一周两次/一周一次的关系
  In the final analysis, the author can not provide some convincing evidence to support his viewpoint. To bolster it he must provide clearer materials. The author should demonstrate that extra $500 council pays can receive a better service from EZ than from ABC, and the EZ's collection effect is better than ABC's.最后一句总结把上述错误都总结一下为好吧,比如truck的那个