argument17 【加州阳光】第三次作业

riverwUID: 2199459

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.未交代当地居民更关心垃圾处理次数，还是费用
2.无理假设：更多的卡车一定能提供更好的服务
3.无效调查：回应调查人数不一定具有代表性

In the letter the editor concludes that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support the conclusion, the editor cites the following evidences: (1) EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once; (2) Having the same scale of truck fleet as ABC has, EZ has recently ordered additional trucks; and (3) In last year's town survey 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's service. Though plausible on the surface, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

Firstly, the fact that EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC does not lend any strong support to the conclusion since the editor fails to analyze whether the local residents care more about the frequency of the service than the fee they are charged. People there might think that collecting trash one time per week is enough to meet their requirements and collecting two times would therefore brings no significant benefits to their living. Consequently the residents will choose ABC to dispose trash due to its sufficient service and lower price, rather than EZ.

Secondly, the editor unfairly assumes that with newly ordered additional trucks EZ would necessarily provide higher-quality services than ABC. It is possible that EZ provides services for more clients than ABC does so that the number of trucks that EZ could use to serve this town would be smaller than that of ABC, even take into account the additional trucks. Moreover, the performance of the service can not be determined only by the number of trucks, but also some other factors such as trash disposing techniques, trucks' usage, average trash collecting time, and so on. Before all these factors are discussed clearly, it is unreasonable to conclude which company will provide better services.

Finally, the effectiveness of the survey result quoted in the letter is quite questionable since the editor provides no information about what percentage of the town residents responded to the survey. It is entirely possible that only a small proportion of the whole population succeeded in responding to the survey while most people failed to respond due to their respective reasons. The respondents therefore might not be representative enough and yet the main recognition of all the residents remains unclear. Although 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance, it is too early to conclude that EZ would be welcomed by most residents of the town.

In conclusion, the argument in the letter is completely unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the editor should have to indicate that it is necessary to receive the services twice a week and the residents can bear the increase of the monthly fee, and explain why EZ would provide trash collection services with better performance than ABC. The editor should also provide critical information of the survey to figure out the common recognition of the whole population on EZ's performance.

[ 本帖最后由 riverw 于 2006-6-18 16:42 编辑 ]

lzen5UID: 2216060

i am always amazed by how much people here can wirte in a short amount of time..you finished this magnificent essay in 45 minutes ?

riverwUID: 2199459

No. I'm still far away from the level of writing an argument within 30 minutes.
Anyway, I think I'm getting close to, :-)

leaf99UID: 2174003

In the letter the editor（搞错了，是arguer写给editor，而不是editor写的哦） concludes that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection, rather than switching（rather than do sth。。） to ABC Waste. To support the conclusion, the editor cites the following evidences: (1) EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once; (2) Having the same scale of truck fleet as ABC has, EZ has recently ordered additional trucks; and (3) In last year's town survey 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's service. Though plausible on the surface, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

Firstly, the fact that EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC does not lend any strong support to the conclusion since the editor fails to analyze whether the local residents care more about the frequency of the service than the fee they are charged（这句话我喜欢）. People there might think that collecting trash one time（once） per week is enough to meet their requirements and collecting two times（twice） would therefore brings no significant benefits（improvement会不会好一些呢） to their living. Consequently the residents will choose ABC against EZ to dispose trash due to its sufficient service and lower price.

Secondly, the editor unfairly assumes that with newly ordered additional trucks EZ would necessarily provide higher-quality services than ABC. It is possible that EZ provides services for(to) more clients than ABC does so that the number of trucks that EZ could use to serve this town would be smaller than that of ABC, even take into account the additional trucks(even with the additional trucks counted in). Moreover, the performance of the service can not be determined only by the number of trucks. There are some other factors including trash disposing techniques, trucks' usage, average trash collecting time, and so on. Before(Unless) all these factors are discussed clearly, it is unreasonable to conclude which company will provide better services(service).

Finally, the effectiveness of the survey result quoted in the letter is quite questionable since the editor provides no information about what percentage of the town residents responded to the survey. It is entirely possible that only a small proportion of the whole population succeeded in responding to the survey while most people failed to respond due to their respective reasons. The respondents therefore might not be representative enough and yet the main recognition of all the residents remains unclear(这么好的句子啊，怎么写出来的。。羡慕). Although 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance, it is too early to conclude that EZ would be welcomed （were welcome to）by most residents of the town.

In conclusion, the argument in the letter is completely unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the editor should have to indicate that it is necessary to receive the services twice a week and the residents can bear the increase of the monthly fee, and explain why EZ would provide trash collection services with better performance than ABC. The editor should also provide critical information of the survey to figure out the common recognition of the whole population on EZ's performance.

总体：怎么写这么好啊，我羡慕你那美丽的长句子！惊叹中！我要借鉴~~

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

[ 本帖最后由 leaf99 于 2006-6-20 02:10 编辑 ]

riverwUID: 2199459

看了你对我的肯定，真的是感到莫大的惊喜啊！
这可是我从学英语以来获得的最大的称赞。感谢感谢～～

对自己误以为editor是arguer感到羞愧....太大意了。

[ 本帖最后由 riverw 于 2006-6-20 22:35 编辑 ]