Argument17 【CSMY作文互改小组】第二组第二次作业DADA'

DIDOROSEUID: 2183292

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."

Analyse:
Backgroud: EZ Disposal raise its price from $2000 to $2500, the author of this letter heard that the town coucil was about to replace it with ABC Waste, so he write to express his attitude.
conculsion: The council should still use EZ
reason: EZ is worthy the price
assumption: EZ would do a better job than ABC, and what the residents of WG benefit from EZ would excess the extra fee.
Evidence: EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only one
        EZ would own more trucks than ABC soon
        EZ received an 80-percent praise in the last year’s town survey
Oppose: 1. The assumption lacken sufficient evidences
       2. Fail to role out other possible reason for replacing EZ

TIME NOT LIMITED 2HOURS

The author of this letter argued that Walnut Grove's town council should stick to EZ Disposal although it recently raised its price. However, the author provided no efficient evidence to support his assumption that EZ Disposal would worth the price, and failed to rule out other possible reason for EZ Disposal to be repalced. I will discuss these flaws in turn.

The argument relies on the assumption that EZ would do a better job than ABC, and what the residents of WG benefit from EZ would excess the extra fee. The author tried to convince us by listing three tempting facts, which turn out to be unpersuasive. First, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once provides no justification that the residents would benefit from the extra one. Probably the trash amount in WG is so small that a once-a-week collection can just meet the residents’ need.

Second, the mere fact that EZ would own more trucks than ABC is insufficient evidence to conclude that EZ could be more efficient than ABC. As the collection of trash is always done according to the scheduel, if ABC can stick to the scheduel as well as EZ does, owning more cars contributes little to the claim that EZ’s service would be superior to ABC’s. In addition, It is entirely possible that the trucks are ordered for their new business in other areas. If so, the author’s argument would be seriously weakened.

Third, the statistical evidence involving an 80-percent praise in the last year’s town survey is too vague to be infoemative. We donot know whether the responders of the survey are quantitatively enough to represent the whole attitude of the residents in WG towards EZ Disposal, or the majority of the responders are residents who are content with the service provided by EZ Disposal. Lacking more specific information about how the survey was conducted, the author cannot convincing us that the residents of WG are really satisfied.

Finally, the author fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for the replacement of EZ Disposal. Maybe EZ Disposal is a traditional trash collected company, whereas ABC Waste is a envirmental company using up-to-date technology in recycling; maybe the rise of price in EZ Disposal is merely due to its ten-year contract with the town, by which the company owns a priority to other companies in this area. Without further investigation any claims made about the necessarity of replacement are doubtful.


In final analysis, the conclusion is not well reasoned. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more suffient evidence concerning the service provided EZ Disposal is indeed superior to ABC Waste. To better evaluate the argument, we need more informention regarding the real public praise of EZ Disposal.

[ 本帖最后由 DIDOROSE 于 2007-1-2 10:55 编辑 ]

piggy2006UID: 2272134

The author of this letter argued that Walnut Grove's town council should stick to EZ Disposal although it recently raised its price. However, the author provided no efficient evidence to support his assumption that EZ Disposal would worth the price, and failed to rule out other possible reason(应该是复数吧。。。) for EZ Disposal to be repalced. I will discuss these flaws in turn.

The argument relies on the assumption that EZ would do a better job than ABC, and what the residents of WG benefit from EZ would excess the extra fee. The author tried to convince us by listing three tempting facts, which turn out to be unpersuasive. First, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once provides no justification that the residents would benefit from the extra one. Probably the trash amount in WG is so small that a once-a-week collection can just meet the residents’ need. 觉得你这里分析得很浅~你可以说由于这种可能性，EZ的一周两次收垃圾很有可能造成极大的浪费，导致什么什么，因此政府放弃选EZ等等。。。这样更有说服力一点~

Second, the mere fact that EZ would own more trucks than ABC is insufficient evidence to conclude that EZ could be more efficient than ABC. As the collection of trash is always done according to the scheduel, if ABC can stick to the scheduel as well as EZ does, owning more cars contributes little to the claim that EZ’s service would be superior to ABC’s. In addition, It is entirely possible that the trucks are ordered for their new business in other areas.(感觉这句话没有说完。。。最好加一句so that说一下这种可能性导致的后果或者情况使得政府弃用。。。总觉得你的分析就差那么一点点到位~) If so, the author’s argument would be seriously weakened.

Third, the statistical evidence involving an 80-percent praise in the last year’s town survey is too vague to be infoemative. We donot know whether the responders of the survey are quantitatively enough to represent the whole attitude of the residents in WG towards EZ Disposal, or the majority of the responders are residents who are content with the service provided by EZ Disposal. Lacking more specific information about how the survey was conducted, the author cannot convincing us that the residents of WG are really satisfied.(这段可以再说深入一点，举一点perhaps等等~不要光是说理的东西~)

Finally, the author fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for the replacement of EZ Disposal. Maybe EZ Disposal is a traditional trash collected company, whereas ABC Waste is a envirmental company using up-to-date technology in recycling; maybe the rise of price in EZ Disposal is merely due to its ten-year contract with the town, by which the company owns a priority to other companies in this area. Without further investigation any claims made about the necessarity of replacement are doubtful.这段不错哈~


In final analysis, the conclusion is not well reasoned. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more suffient evidence concerning the service provided EZ Disposal is indeed superior to ABC Waste. To better evaluate the argument, we need more informention regarding the real public praise of EZ Disposal.

觉得你的argument最大的问题在于每一个逻辑错误都点到为止，很少深入的说。 至于行文顺序，个人有个人的爱好，我比较喜欢一直even if下去，看有的G友说小米喜欢把最主要的逻辑错误说在最前面，你这篇什根据作者的顺序来驳斥的，其实我认为都还可以哈~
好困阿。。。睡觉去了。。。
^@^~

DIDOROSEUID: 2183292

谢谢猪猪，你不说我真没看出来我那么喜欢点到为止，所以我照你说了修改了一下
The author of this letter argued that Walnut Grove's town council should stick to EZ Disposal although it recently raised its price. However, the author provided no efficient evidence to support his assumption that EZ Disposal would worth the price, and failed to rule out other possible reasons for EZ Disposal’ repalcement. I will discuss these flaws in turn.

The argument relies on the assumption that EZ would do a better job than ABC, and what the residents of Walnut Grove benefit from EZ would excess the extra fee. The author tried to convince us by listing three tempting facts, which turn out to be unpersuasive. First, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once provides no justification that the residents would benefit from the extra one. Probably the trash amount in town is so small that a once-a-week collection provided by ABC Waste can just meet the residents’ need. If so, it is simply a waste of money to pay a $500 extra bill each month for EZ Disposal, which can otherwise used to meet more urgent need in town. Since the necessarity of a twice-a-week collection is not mentioned in the letter, it is hard to predict whether EZ Disposal would worth the price or not.

Secondly, the mere fact that EZ own more trucks than ABC is insufficient evidence to conclude that EZ could be more efficient than ABC. As the collection of trash is always done according to the scheduel, if ABC can stick to the scheduel as well as EZ does, owning more cars contributes little to the claim that EZ’s service would be superior to ABC’s. In addition, it is entirely possible that the trucks are ordered because EZ Disposal recently expand their bunisness to several other areas which might not enough supported even by the additional ordered cars. If it is the case, the service of EZ Disposal would not keep its usual quality, and the author’s argument would be seriously weakened.

Thirdly, the statistical evidence involving an 80-percent praise in the last year’s town survey is too vague to be informative. We do not know whether the responders of the survey are quantitatively enough to represent the whole attitude of the residents, or are the majority of the responders happened to be some kind-hearted residents who are content with the service provided by EZ Disposal due to the process of survey. Lacking more specific information about how the survey was conducted, the author cannot convincing us that the residents of WG are really satisfied. Even if the majority of residents do satisfied with EZ’ performance, the author cannot convince me that it is better that ABC. Probably after an one-year service, ABC Waste could receive an 90-percent praise across the town.

Even if EZ Disposal’s service is better compare to ABC’s, I still cannot be convinced that it is the right choice. Maybe EZ Disposal is a traditional trash-collected company, whereas ABC Waste is a newly-established environmental company using up-to-date technology in recycling; maybe the rise of price in EZ Disposal is merely due to its ten-year contract with the town, by which the company owns a priority to other companies in this area; maybe Walnut Grove faced serious problem whose solution calls for money more urgent than this issue, and the council just made a right choose after balance the pros and cons carefully. However, the author fails to consider these factors that might account for the replacement of EZ Disposal. Without further investigation, any claims made about the replacement is presumptuous.

In final analysis, the conclusion is not unconvinsing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more suffient evidence which can indicate the service provided EZ Disposal is indeed superior to ABC Waste. To better evaluate the argument, we also need more informention regarding the decision process of council over this issue.

[ 本帖最后由 DIDOROSE 于 2007-1-3 17:54 编辑 ]