argument17 请狂拍,必回拍

staroceanUID: 2271193

argument17 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."


1.首先，调查是否可以证明人们的满意度
2.其次，作者不能仅以2次1次，卡车多断定ez比abc好
3.最后，就算作者能证明上面的这些假设，我也不能相信，council作了一个错误的决定。首先，council是因为涨价做的决定马，其次，就算只是因为涨价，那ez值得我们多花这么多钱吗。在有更便宜的可以选择的情况下，我们有必要选择这个花费高的吗？

The author attempt to convince us that Walnut Grove’s town council has made a mistaken decision to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, despite EZ raised its monthly fee to $2500, which is $500 higher than ABC’s. To justify this conclusion the author points out that ABC collects trash once a week, while EZ collects twice and that since EZ ordered additional trucks, they will have more trucks than ABC. Meanwhile, the author cites the evidence that EZ provide good service based on a resent survey in which 80% of people of the respondents presented their satisfaction with EZ. However, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Fist of all, the survey cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s recommendation that EZ’s service is preferable. The author falls to provide assurances that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whose trash were collect by EZ. However, even if the general people are satisfied with EZ, no evidence shows that they are not likely to enjoy ABC’s service better.

Moreover, the author cannot substantiate his or her conclusion that EZ is preferable than ABC based on the mere facts he or she cites. The first fact that EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC is insignificant until this extra collection is necessary to the town. Otherwise, it will be a waste of money to pay for the additional work. Another fact the author cites is that EZ ordered more trucks. However, this evidence provides nothing but itself to bolster EZ is a better choice than ABC. What kind of work exactly these trucks will be assigned to? When will EZ get them? And when will them be put into use? Obviously, there is no evidence suggesting that these additional trucks will make EZ provide better service.

Anyway, even if the author can substantial the foregoing assumptions, I will still remain unconvinced that our council made a terrible decision and the EZ should be continuing contracted with. To judge the decision, we should check all the factors our council has considered. Is there any other determinant contributing to the switch? Perhaps some serious problems have been discovered. For insurance, EZ may not dispose the trash they collect properly. However, even if the raise price is the dominating factor, the author cannot convince me that EZ deserve the higher payment, compared with ABC. A 25% markup is not a small one, we have to know what will EZ do exactly with these extra payment to benefit us? Moreover, should we pay additional $6000 a year to employ a trash collecting company, rather than to solve some other pressing social problems, when there is an less expensive company available. We could not risk squandering our taxer’s money without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the decision.

In conclusion, the evidence offered in support of the recommendation provides little credible support for it. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more evidences that our town can benefit form EZ’s additional trucks and extra collection per week. And I will need more assurance that the survey can indicate that EZ’s service is preferable. Finally, before I accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more information about why council made this decision and why should we put so much money to EZ instead of the less expensive company ABC.




[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-3 17:26 编辑 ]

yiran27UID: 2201423

The author attempt to convince us that Walnut Grove’s town council has made a mistaken decision to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, despite EZ raised its monthly fee to $2500, which is $500 higher than ABC’s. To justify this conclusion the author points out that ABC collects trash once a week, while EZ collects twice and that since EZ ordered additional trucks, they will have more trucks than ABC. Meanwhile, the author cites the evidence that EZ provide good service based on a resent survey in which 80% of people of the respondents presented their satisfaction with EZ. However, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Fist[First] of all, the survey cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s recommendation that EZ’s service is preferable. The author falls to provide[fails to provide] assurances that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whose trash were collect by EZ. However, even if the general people are satisfied with EZ, no evidence shows that they are not likely to enjoy ABC’s service better.

Moreover, the author cannot substantiate his or her conclusion that EZ is preferable than ABC based on the mere facts he or she cites. The first fact that EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC is insignificant until this extra collection is necessary to the town. Otherwise, it will be a waste of money to pay for the additional work. Another fact the author cites is that EZ ordered more trucks. However, this evidence provides nothing but itself to bolster EZ is a better choice than ABC. What kind of work exactly these trucks will be assigned to? When will EZ get them? And when will them[they] be put into use? Obviously, there is no evidence suggesting that these additional trucks will make EZ provide better service.[evidence 过于单调]

Anyway, even if the author can substantial[substantiate] the foregoing assumptions, I will still remain unconvinced that our council made a terrible decision and the EZ should be continuing[换成continuously似乎好些。形容词修饰动词？我也不晓得可不可以哈] contracted with. To judge the decision, we should check all the factors our council has considered. Is there any other determinant contributing to the switch? Perhaps some serious problems have been discovered. For insurance[还是for instance], EZ may not dispose the trash they collect properly. However, even if the raise price is the dominating factor, the author cannot convince me that EZ deserve the higher payment, compared with ABC. A 25% markup is not a small one, we have to know what will EZ do exactly with these extra payment to benefit us? Moreover, should we pay additional $6000 a year to employ a trash collecting company, rather than to solve some other pressing social problems, when there is an[a] less expensive company available. We could not risk squandering our taxer’s[税变人乎？且莫自己造词tax payers’] money without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations[解释，说明？？决定还要解释？？choices，或者直接alternatives] for the decision.In conclusion, the evidence offered in support of the recommendation provides little credible support for it[不要for it,与前面重复，话语累赘]. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more evidences[复数？？前面还是单数好像] that our town can benefit form EZ’s additional trucks and extra collection per week. And I will need more assurance that the survey can indicate that EZ’s service is preferable.

Finally, before I accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more information about why council made this decision and why should we put[invest] so much money to EZ instead of the less expensive company ABC.逻辑还可以，思路清晰，但是基本的语法知识是很欠缺，希望以后注意，继续努力~！

[ 本帖最后由 yiran27 于 2007-1-4 12:14 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

呵呵 谢谢指教