Argument17【加州阳光】第三次作业★from 叶子★

leaf99UID: 2174003

时间: 1h  字数：532
好不容易写出来，总体感觉很差，句型表达都很平庸化。。

1、收费提高，但是并没有说明EZ有任何服务改善。
2、垃圾收集两次可能没有必要
3、问卷回复者不具有代表性。
4、只吹捧EZ，而不描述ABC，信息不对称。

In this argument, the arguer tries to persuade the town council to continue using EZ Disposal despite its recent price rise since EZ collects trash twice a day and provides additional trucks and exceptional service.  However, with careful scrutiny of this argument, we can find it suffers from a series of critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, there is no indication that EZ will improve its service after the fee rise.  Though the arguer mentioned that EZ has ordered additional trucks, it is very likely that this addition is not necessary for this town based on the fact that a fleet of 20 trucks has met the town's disposal need for the past ten years. It is possible that Walnut Grove is a small and stable town whose trash requires collection trucks no more than 20. Also EZ may increase the number of trucks for new customers in a new town and impose the additional cost on Walnut Grove residents. Besides the suspicious truck increase, EZ did not provide any other improvement that could account for its price rise. Without providing sufficient information about relevant service improvement, it is unreasonable for EZ to raise its monthly fee by 25%.

Secondly, the arguer mistakenly assumes that collecting trash twice a day is better than once. On the one hand, if ABC can collect trash quickly and cleanly, it is highly possible that those town residents will prefer once a day to twice. It is the quality of disposal service that matters, rather than collection times. On the other hand, average town residents may only produce a small amount of trash and therefore twice a day is really unnecessary. Without including any detailed information about the service of the two trash disposal companies, the arguer could not simply draw the conclusion.

Thirdly, the arguer considers EZ's service exceptional simply based on a survey while the survey respondents may not be representative of the town residents. It is very likely that only a small proportion of residents succeed in responding to the survey while the majority failed due to their respecitve reasons. If the number of survey respondents is rather small, the survey result will not be representative of the whole residents. Besides, town residents may change their attitude toward EZ's performance if the fee rise so dramatically without any service improvement. Therefore, this original survey result is not applicable to the changed situation.

Last but not least, the arguer focuses on trumpeting EZ's good service while ABC's information is largely vacant. Only with sufficient knowledge about both collection companies can the arguer convince the town council to reconsider its decision.  The arguer needs draw his conclusion based on a comparison, rather than advisements of one side. EZ's service is good according to the descriptions, however, ABC's service might be much better. The argument will not be convincing unless it contains as detailed service description of ABC as EZ.  

In conclusion, the above argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning how EZ will improve its service after the fee rise and the validity of the survey result as well as a detailed introduction to ABC's service.

[ 本帖最后由 leaf99 于 2006-6-20 02:17 编辑 ]

leaf99UID: 2174003

请拍得更猛烈些吧~~~呵呵

riverwUID: 2199459

sorry，白天上班。
现在加班，正在拍。

riverwUID: 2199459

1、收费提高，但是并没有说明EZ有任何服务改善。
2、垃圾收集两次可能没有必要
3、问卷回复者不具有代表性。
4、只吹捧EZ，而不描述ABC，信息不对称。

In this argument, the arguer tries to persuade the town council to continue using EZ Disposal despite its recent price rise since EZ collects trash twice a day (week) and provides additional trucks and exceptional service (exceptional这种用法比较少吧，尽管有“非凡的，不寻常的”的含义).   However, with careful scrutiny of this argument, we can find it suffers from a series of critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. (第一段要不要把原argument里所做的比较列出来呢？我倾向于列出来，不但省去归纳原论证过程并思考自己表达方式的时间，还可以梳理自己批驳的思路。)

First of all, there is no indication that EZ will improve its service after the fee rise.  Though the arguer mentioned that EZ has ordered additional trucks, it is very likely that this addition is not necessary for this town based on the fact that a fleet of 20 trucks has met the town's disposal need for the past ten years (这句表达生硬了, based on换成because/since更自然些). It is possible that Walnut Grove is a small and stable town whose trash requires collection trucks no more than 20. Also EZ may increase the number of trucks for new customers in a new town and impose the additional cost on Walnut Grove residents. Besides the suspicious truck increase, EZ did not provide any other improvement that could account for its price rise. Without providing sufficient information about relevant service improvement, it is unreasonable for EZ to raise its monthly fee by 25%. (把“卡车数量问题”跟“费用增加”问题放在一起说，感觉稍微有些混乱。而且卡车数量问题是跟ABC有比较的，暗含的意思是EZ能提供更好的服务，批驳时应体现出来。我认为分开好写点：费用增加一事未详细说明，因而可能是完全不能接受的；定购额外的卡车并不能表明EZ一定会提供比ABC更好的服务。)

Secondly, the arguer mistakenly assumes that collecting trash twice a day (week) is better than once. (垃圾收集时间周期是一周，不是一天。所以我认为这里批“2次是否必要”更妥当些，因为就生活体会来说，一周内收1次垃圾似乎次数真的少了点，而两次倒的确让人感觉舒服得多。) On the one hand, if ABC can collect trash more quickly and cleanly, it is highly possible that those town residents will prefer once a day (week) to twice. It is the quality of disposal service that matters, rather than collection times. On the other hand, average town residents may only produce a small amount of trash and therefore twice a day (week) is really unnecessary. Without including any detailed information about the service of the two trash disposal (去掉trash disposal) companies, the arguer could not simply draw the conclusion.

Thirdly, the arguer considers EZ's service exceptional simply based on a survey while the survey respondents may not be representative of all the town residents. It is very likely that only a small proportion of residents succeed (succeeded) in responding to the survey while the majority failed due to their respecitve reasons. If the number of survey respondents is rather small, the survey result will not be representative of the attitude of  the whole residents. Besides, town residents may (might) change their attitude toward EZ's performance if the fee rise so dramatically without any service improvement. Therefore, this original survey result is not applicable to the changed situation.

Last but not least, the arguer focuses on trumpeting EZ's good service while ABC's information is largely vacant. Only with sufficient knowledge about both collection companies can the arguer convince the town council to reconsider its (their) decision.  The arguer needs draw his conclusion based on a comparison (in every aspect), rather than advisements (advertisements?) of one side. EZ's service is good according to the descriptions (还是说"EZ可能好"吧，因为批那个survey的时候就辩驳说大多数民众不一定满意EZ的服务), however, ABC's service might be much better. The argument will not be convincing unless it contains as detailed service description of ABC as EZ.  ("信息不对称"批得有点牵强，因为arguer比较了垃圾收集次数、车子数量，EZ仅多了个调查结果。ABC是新公司，以前未服务过这个town，是无法提供调查结果的。)

In conclusion, the above argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence (evidences) concerning how EZ will improve its service after the fee rise and the validity of the survey result as well as a detailed introduction to ABC's service.

这篇argument，你的批驳思路似乎跟大家不大一样。我觉得你想得过于复杂了。
语言方面，这篇也赶你前面的issue/argument要差些，未表现出来你的真实水平。可能是你在考试，写得太匆忙的缘故。
有拍得不当之处，请包涵。

riverwUID: 2199459

今天看了下精华区的几个帖子，好像argument开头段不提倡复述啊。
这个问题算我没拍对，惭愧。

不复述的话，开头段又得花心思去想了，对我来说又要耗不少时间，郁闷。