Argument17 我的第一篇argu 很欠拍 呵呵~

莎拉UID: 2185851

Argument 17. 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.”

第一次写argument, 欢迎批评指正 意见越多越好~~~~ 留下链接，必回拍哦

Outline:
第一段：简要说明论者观点，指出有漏洞
第二段，第三段和第四段：分别就论者的三个理由进行反驳
第五段：结论


In this argument, the arguer jumps to a conclusion that Walnut town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than using ABC Waste for trash collection although the latter charges $500 less than EZ for monthly services. He believes that EZ is better than ABC Waste based on three reasons. These reasons seem plausible at first glance. After contemplating for a while, we can find that the arguer’s reasoning has some loopholes.

The first reason the arguer offers is that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But the arguer fails to provide adequate evidence to show that collecting trash more frequently is more beneficial than collecting it only once. What if all the trash can be collected only once? Then, collecting it twice a week means mere waste. Or, maybe EZ works with less efficiency—it cannot finish collecting the trash all at once, but ABC can. So the extra money EZ is charging now may not be worthwhile. Quite possibly, the residents in Walnut Grove’s town want to use ABC which is cheaper and more efficient than EZ.   

Besides, the arguer claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks. However, he has ignored the fact that whether the additional trucks are used for trash collection in Walnut Grove. If they are bought for other uses or they are used in other towns. Then, EZ does not bring more benefit to Walnut Grove than ABC does. What’s more, even if all the trucks are used in Walnut Grove, it does not mean that the services provided by EZ are better than that of ABC’s. The author did not mention that whether the trucks in EZ are the same as the trucks that ABC owns. Although EZ also has a fleet of 20 trucks, the trucks can be very old and poor in quality, so additional trucks in EZ might not bring more efficiency.

As for the last reason, it is also groundless. He fails to provide adequate evidence to prove that the result of the survey is convincing. After reading this letter, readers still cannot answer some key questions, like who conducted this survey? How it is conducted? What’s the total number of the respondents? When the survey is conducted last year, has EZ raised its monthly fee? If not, how do we know that people would still be satisfied after the increase of monthly fee? All these facts are not mentioned in this letter. We cannot reach a conclusion so easily only according to this inadequate evidence.

All in all, the arguer’s reasons are not convincing enough. A more detailed research should be done, involving the residents’ reaction to EZ’s services and its recent action of raising money. Sufficient facts and statistics should be known before he draws his conclusion. Otherwise, he cannot make people accept this proposal of not switching from EZ to ABC. (479 words)

seeyetUID: 2218205

In this argument, the arguer jumps to a conclusion that Walnut town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than using ABC Waste for trash collection although the latter charges $500 less than EZ for monthly services. He believes that EZ is better than ABC Waste based on three reasons. These reasons seem plausible at first glance. After contemplating for a while, we can find that the arguer’s reasoning has some loopholes.[lz用词好多哦！我也觉得我的开头太长了。不过不知lz用reasons一代而过是不是太简单了:)]

The first reason the arguer offers is that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But the arguer fails to provide adequate evidence to show that collecting trash more frequently is more beneficial than collecting it only once. What if all the trash can be collected only once? Then, collecting it twice a week means mere waste. Or, maybe EZ works with less efficiency—it cannot finish collecting the trash all at once, but ABC can. So the extra money EZ is charging now may not be worthwhile. Quite possibly, the residents in Walnut Grove’s town want to use ABC which is cheaper and more efficient than EZ.   

Besides, the arguer claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks. However, he has ignored the fact that whether the additional trucks are used for trash collection in Walnut Grove. If they are bought for other uses or they are used in other towns. 【，】Then, EZ does not bring more benefit to Walnut Grove than ABC does. What’s more, even if all the trucks are used in Walnut Grove, it does not mean that the services provided by EZ are better than that of ABC’s. The author did not mention that whether the trucks in EZ are the same as the trucks that ABC owns. Although EZ also has a fleet of 20 trucks, the trucks can be very old and poor in quality, so additional trucks in EZ might not bring more efficiency. 【这个观点我没有，加上！:D】

As for the last reason, it is also groundless. 【是不是要稍微介绍下？一二两句合一下】He fails to provide adequate evidence to prove that the result of the survey is convincing. After reading this letter, readers still cannot answer some key questions, like who conducted this survey? How it is conducted? What’s the total number of the respondents? When the survey is conducted last year, has EZ raised its monthly fee? 【这个又没有，lz考虑好详细哦，向你学习！】If not, how do we know that people would still be satisfied after the increase of monthly fee? 【since】All these facts are not mentioned in this letter. We cannot reach a conclusion so easily only according to this inadequate evidence.

All in all, the arguer’s reasons are not convincing enough. A more detailed research should be done, involving the residents’ reaction to EZ’s services and its recent action of raising money. Sufficient facts and statistics should be known before he draws his conclusion. Otherwise, he cannot make people accept this proposal of not switching from EZ to ABC. (479 words)

恩，不错！第一篇就这样，不容易啊，就是不知用了多少时间，呵呵！

莎拉UID: 2185851

谢谢你哦~~
我用的时间挺长的
因为是第一篇
所以仔细斟酌了一番
还参考了很多范文什么的
大概写了两个多小时吧
以后再慢慢限时

colourdragonUID: 2209624

In this argument, the arguer jumps to a conclusion that Walnut town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than using ABC Waste for trash collection although the latter charges $500 less than EZ for monthly services.( 这一句有些长)He believes that EZ is better than ABC Waste based on three reasons. These reasons seem plausible at first glance. After contemplating for a while, we can find that the arguer’s reasoning has some loopholes.(reasons 是不是可以简单提一下,看北美范文都是概括的较详细)
The first reason the arguer offers is that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But the arguer fails to provide adequate evidence to show that collecting trash more frequently is more beneficial than collecting it only once. What if all the trash can be collected only once? Then, collecting it twice a week means mere waste. Or, maybe EZ works with less efficiency—it cannot finish collecting the trash all at once, but ABC can. So the extra money EZ is charging now may not be worthwhile. Quite possibly, the residents in Walnut Grove’s town want to use ABC which is cheaper and more efficient than EZ.   

Besides, the arguer claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks. However, he has ignored the fact that whether the additional trucks are used for trash collection in Walnut Grove. If they are bought for other uses or they are used in other towns. Then, EZ does not bring more benefit to Walnut Grove than ABC does. What’s more, even if all the trucks are used in Walnut Grove, it does not mean that the services provided by EZ are better than that of ABC’s. The author did not mention that whether the trucks in EZ are the same as the trucks that ABC owns. Although EZ also has a fleet of 20 trucks, the trucks can be very old and poor in quality, so additional trucks in EZ might not bring more efficiency.

As for the last reason, it is also groundless. He fails to provide adequate evidence to prove that the result of the survey is convincing. After reading this letter, readers still cannot answer some key questions, like who conducted this survey? How it is conducted? What’s the total number of the respondents? When the survey is conducted last year, has EZ raised its monthly fee? If not, how do we know that people would still be satisfied after the increase of monthly fee? All these facts are not mentioned in this letter. We cannot reach a conclusion so easily only according to this inadequate evidence. (这一段的argue不是很有力, 觉得可以用: 喜欢EZ的人才更会respond  来驳斥)
All in all, the arguer’s reasons are not convincing enough. A more detailed research should be done, involving the residents’ reaction to EZ’s services and its recent action of raising money. Sufficient facts and statistics should be known before he draws his conclusion. Otherwise, he cannot make people accept this proposal of not switching from EZ to ABC. (479 words)
还有一个攻击点正如"arguement就该这样写"里所说, 作者假设政府换成ABC的唯一原因就是因为EZ收费高
总体感觉不错啊,虽然是第一篇
加油!

莎拉UID: 2185851

谢谢哦~~~
写这篇的时候还没看过argument就该这样写
后来偶然看到
有恍然大悟之感
呵呵
大家都加油哈