argument17 【长征队piggy2006第1次作业】必回拍！谢拍^@^~

piggy2006UID: 2272134

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."

提纲：

1、居委会也许不是因为价格问题才不用EZ。其他原因也可能导致他们放弃EZ而用ABC。
2、即使放弃EZ是因为费用问题，EZ同样的服务10年未变，为什么突然价钱。这种没有给任何理由的行为当然是拒绝居委会合作的理由。
3、EZ不一定比ABC好：也许该地区用不着一周收两次垃圾，而EZ在这一点上无疑是一种资源浪费；车多不一定代表实力强。
4、关于调查准确性的问题：被调查者的数量、身份、对满意的界定。

Before making a conclusion of Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from several other angles. The arguer, who asserted that the town council is mistaken, is cursory without considering other factors why the town council will replace EZ with ABC which may affects his judgment.

First of all, for the town council, it must have thought about every aspect carefully before contracting with ABC instead of EZ, especially that EZ has been as a cooperator of the town council for ten years. Actually, the primary event which the town council cares about may not be because of the fee chang. Other elements may also lead this change. To illuminate, maybe the technology of dealing with the trash between two corporations are far more different. Maybe the way which ABC used for dealing with trash is more advanced than the way which EZ used, for maybe it can reduce secondary pollution and save energy in the process of dealing with trash. If it is so, the town council will certainly choose ABC because of the benefits for the environment, though it is a little expensive for each collecting.

Further more, even if the town council choose ABS instead of EZ is because of fee change, from the argument we can have a suspicion that why EZ raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month recently. Without any amelioration of his service, completely as same as what they did in the past ten years, the purpose of a $500 more fee is not given by EZ, so that the town council can consider this action as an unreasonable  behavior and has fully reasons to refuse cooperate with EZ.

Besides, comparing ABC with EZ, we are not sure whether EZ is better than ABC in the aspects which the arguer refers to. On the one hand, maybe this area is no need to collect trash twice a week. Maybe Walnut Grove has such a small quantity of trash that it is enough for collecting once a week. Twice-week-collecting may be a waste of both money and resource. On the other hand, more trucks do not equal higher strength. Maybe trucks in EZ are not all used for work but most of them have other purposes, while ABC uses all its trucks for work, and it will be clear that ABC doesn't fall behind EZ.

What if we focus on the veracity of the survey? First, the arguer claimed that 80 percent of respondents to the town survey last year are satisfied with EZ without giving a material number of the total participants. So we can doubt that the survey is not exact. Maybe the number of the total participants is too small to reflect the truth, for most of those who dislike EZ's service didn't take into the survey. Maybe most of the respondents had special relationship with EZ. The arguer failed to give us the identities of respondents. Again, even we concede that the survey was all-sided, we might also ask: what is "a satisfied performance" for those respondents. They didn't accept any other services except the EZ's before, with no comparing, can the answer reflect the facts? Maybe the service which ABC would provide is better than the EZ's which they would say "no" to EZ after accepting ABC.

In sum, any other factors that the town council sacrificed EZ for ABC are existent. The arguer failed to think about it carefully before finally making a false conclusion that the town council was mistaken curtly.

以前写过的一篇。感觉自己这片的层次写得不好。较第一次写只是在驳斥的顺序上稍微修改了一下，但始终在这一点上找不到好的写作层次改进。大家多多提意见哈~

P。S：今晚确实很忙，马上要熄灯了~各xdjm的文章小妹明天早上一定给你们改哈~不好意思！


[ 本帖最后由 piggy2006 于 2006-12-9 23:21 编辑 ]

smailingfishUID: 2246243

马上改

smailingfishUID: 2246243

1、居委会也许不是因为价格问题才不用EZ。其他原因也可能导致他们放弃EZ而用ABC。
2、即使放弃EZ是因为费用问题，EZ同样的服务10年未变，为什么突然价钱。这种没有给任何理由的行为当然是拒绝居委会合作的理由。
3、EZ不一定比ABC好：也许该地区用不着一周收两次垃圾，而EZ在这一点上无疑是一种资源浪费；车多不一定代表实力强。
4、关于调查准确性的问题：被调查者的数量、身份、对满意的界定。

Before making a conclusion ofwhether Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from several other angles.感觉第一句有语法问题，好像缺少主语。把后半句改成 the arguer should examine other factors such as ...则么样？ The arguer, who asserted 用一般现在时 that the town council is mistaken, is cursory without considering other factors why the town council will replacereplaced EZ with ABC which may affects his judgment.

First of all, for the town council, it must have用这么肯定的语气个人感觉不合适吧，而且，arg一下，你有没给出证据证明这一点 thought about every aspect carefully before contracting with ABC instead of EZ, especially that 是不是应该用when EZ has been as a cooperator of the town council for ten years. Actually, the primary event which the town council cares about may not be because 删, the changing of the fee chang. Other elements may also lead to?this change. To illuminate, maybe the technology of dealing with the trash between two corporations are far more different. Maybe the way which ABC used for dealing with trash is more advanced than the way which EZ used, for maybe it can reduce secondary pollution and save energy in the process of dealing with trash. If it is so, the town council will certainly choose ABC because of the benefits for the environment, though it is a littlemore expensive for each collecting.

Further more, even if the town council choose ABS instead of EZ is because of fee change, from the argument we can have 改成 come to a suspicion that 换为of why EZ raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month recently. Without any amelioration of his its service, completely as same as what they did in the past ten years 个人感觉直接用before一个词就可以了, the purpose of a $500 more fee汉语式英语the reason for a fee raise of $500 is not given by EZ, so that the town council can consider this action as an unreasonable  behavior and has fully reasons to refuse to cooperate with EZ.

Besides, comparing ABC with EZ, we are not sure whether EZ is better than ABC in the aspects which the arguer refers to. On the one hand, maybe this area is no need to collect trash twice a week. Maybe Walnut Grove has such a small quantity of trash that it is enough for collecting once a week. Twice-week-collecting may be a waste of both money and resource. On the other hand, more trucks do not equal higher strength. Maybe trucks in EZ are not all used for work but most of them have other purposes, while ABC uses all its trucks for work, and it will be clear that ABC doesn't fall behind EZ.

What if we focus on the veracity of the survey? First, the arguer claimed that 80 percent of respondents to the town survey last year are satisfied with EZ without giving a material? number of the total participants. So we can doubt that the survey is not exact. Maybe the number of the total participants is too small to reflect the truth, for most of those who dislike EZ's service didn't take into the survey. Maybe most of the respondents had special relationship with EZ. The arguer failed to give us the identities of respondents. Again, even we concede that the survey was all-sided, we might also ask: what is "a satisfied performance" for those respondents. They didn't accept any other services except the EZ's before, with no comparing out comparison, can the answer reflect the facts? Maybe the service which ABC would provide is better than the EZ's which they would say "no" to EZ after accepting ABC.

In sum, any other factors that the town council sacrificed EZ for ABC are existent. The arguer failed to think about it carefully before finally making a the false conclusion that the town council was mistaken curtly.

eric_panUID: 2270415

Before making a conclusion ofof是不是应该改成that或者就加个whether感觉更顺一些 Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from several other angles. The arguer, who asserted that the town council is mistaken, is cursory without considering other factors why the town council will replace EZ with ABC which may affects his judgment.

First of all, for the town council, it must绝对了点 have thought about every aspect carefully before contracting with ABC instead of EZ, especially that EZ has been as a cooperator of the town council for ten years. Actually, the primary event which the town council cares about may not be because of the fee change. Other elements may also lead this change. To illuminate, maybe the technology of dealing with the trash between two corporations are far more different. Maybe the way which ABC used for dealing with trash is more advanced than the way which EZ used, for maybe it can reduce secondary pollution and save energy in the process of dealing with trash. If it is so, the town council will certainly choose ABC because of the benefitsbenefit for the environment, though it is a littlemore expensive for each collecting.比偶的过渡的自然

Further more, even if the town council choose ABC instead of EZ is because of fee change, from the argument we can have a suspicion that why EZ raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month recently. Without any amelioration of his service, completely as same as what they did in the past ten years, the purpose of a $500 more fee is not given by EZ,感觉怪怪的 so that the town council can consider this action as an unreasonable  behavior and has fully reasons to refuse tocooperate with EZ.

Besides, comparing ABC with EZ, we are not sure whether EZ is better than ABC in the aspects which the arguer refers to. On the one hand, maybe this area is no need to collect trash twice a week. Maybe Walnut Grove has such a small quantity of trash that it is enough for collecting once a week. Twice-week-collecting may be a waste of both money and resource. On the other hand, more trucks do not equal higher strength. Maybe trucks in EZ are not all used for work but most of them have other purposes, while ABC uses all its trucks for work, and it will be clear that ABC doesn't fall behind EZ.

What if we focus on the veracity of the survey? First, the arguer claimed that 80 percent of respondents to the town survey last year are satisfied with EZ without giving a material number of the total participants. So we can doubt that the survey is not exact. Maybe the number of the total participants is too small to reflect the truth, for most of those who dislike EZ's service didn't take into the survey. Maybe most of the respondents had special relationship with EZ偶觉得这么说有点牵强. The arguer failed to give us the identities of respondents. Again, even we concede that the survey was all-sided, we might also ask: what is "a satisfied performance" for those respondents. They didn't accept any other services except the EZ's before, with no comparing, can the answer reflect the facts? Maybe the service which ABC would provide is better than the EZ's which they would say "no" to EZ after accepting ABC.

In sum, any other factors that the town council sacrificed EZ for ABC are existent. The arguer failed to think about it carefully before finally making a false conclusion that the town council was mistaken curtly