Argument17 weixch第二次，拍吧

weixchUID: 2104033

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."

正文：
The letter suggests that Walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ for trash collection services. To support the view point, a survey is concerned in letter which tells us that most of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s performance. A message is also mentioned in the letter that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Moreover, EZ collects once more trash against ABC per week. Based on the 3 reasons above, the author claims that town council has made a bad decision. However, with the evidence shown above, it can not convince me that the additional $500 per month is acceptable.

Firstly, I am really suspicious of the statistical reliability of the survey on which the argument depends, unless the survey can statistically cover the population of Walnut Grove. Even it covers the population of the town, from the information it conveys, we can not draw a conclusion that the inhabitants are ready to accept the $500 increase per month for trash collection services, since the survey only investigate the satisfaction to EZ’s performance, but the acceptance of the additional $500. So the validity of the survey is in question.

Secondly, as the additional $500 per month is concerned, there is no content in the letter to explain the reason behind it clearly. The $500 is used for what? Is it reasonable to increase 25 percent? If the $500 is caused by monopolization of EZ in this field, or is used by EZ to extend the business in other cities, why should the citizens in Walnut Grove pay for the check?

Thirdly, as the $500 is mentioned, the author also implies the future increase of EZ’s fleet of trucks. However, when we ask another question of where the additional trucks would go for service, the letter just has no following statement. Again if the trucks will be used for trash collection services of other cities, the additional $500 for the trucks would be unreasonable.

Finally, when I browse the letter, I can not get more information about ABC than that it only collect trash once per week. There is an obvious bias to ABC in this letter. As EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, the inhabitants may not be familiar with ABC and know the quality of its service. Although EZ claims that it will collect trash once more per week, we can not conclude that it will do the job better than ABC, especially when ABC has more advanced technology and once a week is enough. So if in this case, why should Walnut Grove pay for the excess $500 in the bill of EZ and not try the service of ABC?

In sum, the argument of the letter is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, author should offer more evidence to prove that residents in Walnut Grove are ready to accept the excess 25 percent of monthly fee, and that the additional trucks will be used in Walnut Grove for the collection of twice a week. To better support the conclusion of the letter, author needs to clear where the $500 would go or the rationality of the excess fee and show us more information about ABC to judge if collecting once a week is enough for it do the job perfectly.

jingzhang514UID: 2163811

The letter suggests that Walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ for trash collection services. To support the view point, a survey is concerned in letter which tells us that most of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s performance. A message is also mentioned in the letter that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Moreover, EZ collects once more trash against ABC per week. [是否改为 collect trash once more than好一点，]Based on the 3 reasons above, the author claims that town council has made a bad [个人意见bad 是否改为false或者是mistaken,]decision. However, with the evidence[三个证据，加s好点吧？] shown above, it can not convince me that the additional $500 per month is acceptable.[其实文中最主要的说的是到底是选EZ还是选ABC作为垃圾的清理者，而不是说那500块钱是否被接受]

Firstly, I am really suspicious of the statistical reliability of the survey on which the argument depends, unless the survey can statistically cover the population of Walnut Grove. Even it covers the population of the town, from the information it conveys, we can not draw a conclusion that the inhabitants are ready to accept the $500 increase per month for trash collection services, since the survey only investigate [后面d] the satisfaction to EZ’s performance, but[加not] the acceptance of the additional $500. So the validity of the survey is in question.

Secondly, as the additional $500 per month is concerned, there is no content in the letter to explain the reason behind it clearly. The $500 is used for what? Is it reasonable to increase 25 percent? If the $500 is caused by monopolization of EZ in this field, or is used by EZ to extend the business in other cities, why should the citizens in Walnut Grove pay for the check?

Thirdly, as the $500 is mentioned, the author also implies the future increase of EZ’s fleet of trucks. However, when we ask another question of where the additional trucks would go for service, the letter just has no following statement. [Again if the trucks will be used for trash collection services of other cities, the additional $500 for the trucks would be unreasonable.改为it is possible that the additional trucks may be used in the collection of other countries.]

Finally, when I browse the letter, I can not get more information about ABC than that it only collect trash once per week. There is an obvious bias to ABC in this letter. As EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, the inhabitants may not be familiar with ABC and know the quality of its service. Although EZ claims that it will collect trash once more per week, we can not conclude that it will do the job better than ABC, especially when ABC has more advanced technology and once a week is enough. So if in this case, why should Walnut Grove pay for the excess $500 in the bill of EZ and not try the service of ABC?

In sum, the argument of the letter is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, author should offer more evidence to prove that residents in Walnut Grove are ready to accept the excess 25 percent of monthly fee, and that the additional trucks will be used in Walnut Grove for the collection of twice a week. To better support the conclusion of the letter, author needs to clear where the $500 would go or the rationality of the excess fee and show us more information about ABC to judge if collecting once a week is enough for it do the job perfectly.
我觉得你文章的总体思路是错了。文章要我们攻击的是：根据他给的那三点理由，选EZ也未必比ABC好。如果你有时间的话，是否改下，我再帮你修改，呵呵

weixchUID: 2104033

谢谢