ARGUMENT17 【CSMY作文互改小组】第二次作业

stevenhuUID: 172722

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.EZ twice a week while ABC only once is not sufficient to prove EZ is better.

2.EZ has 20 trucks and has ordered additional trucks is not sufficient to prove.

3.The survey has problem.


DATE 2007-01-03


In the letter the arguer suggests Walnut Grove's town council should still use EZ Disposal despite it raised its monthly fee, while ABC' remain unchanged. To prove the arguer's opinion, he or she listed some EZ's  nominal features such as EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC does just once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks which enables the total number of trucks of EZ has exceeded ABC'. What is more, the arguer also cited a survey which shows 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. The arguer’s opinion seems plausible, but after scrutinize of these cited facts and surveys would show that the arguer has some fallacies in reasoning.

Firstly, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC does just once is not a necessary condition that EZ provides a better service. It is completely possible that EZ's trash collecting procedure is not so efficient that they need to collect twice while once a week is enough for ABC's procedure. And it is also possible that even for EZ's procedure, once a week is sufficient to keep the city clean, but they still provide an extra time of service aiming at showing they are very busy working while providing an reason for their monthly fee raise. To be general, without the evaluation of clean result, EZ's more effort of service does not equal a better service.

Secondly, the statement that EZ has ordered new trucks with which the amount of EZ's trucks will exceed ABC's also fails to convince us that EZ can provide a better service. More trucks, just as more skilled workers and a better management team is just a factor which indicates EZ would provide a more excellent clean environment, but not must. Perhaps those newly bought trucks are planed to be used to clean other towns which means the number of trucks used in Walnut Grove would remain unchanged or even decrease if they even plan to patch some of the old trucks to clean that town. For short, lacking enough information such as the usage of these newly ordered trucks, it is arbitrary to say that EZ can vender a better service just because they have more trucks

Finally, the survey appeared in this letter showing 80 percent of the respondents is satisfied with EZ's performance is also not sufficient to convince us that ABC’s work is worse than EZ. As was mentioned in the letter, ABC company has already provided trash collection service for Walnut Grove for ten years, which means at the same time, the town's residents has not experienced ABC's service for at least ten years. Though people are 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, it is entirely possible that ABC can provide a more satisfied service than EZ. Without comparison about people's feedback about the two company's service, it is difficult to convince us one is better just by saying it is excellent.

To sum up, the speaker fails to persuade us to believe that Walnut Grove's town council would still make contract with EZ for neither the nominal features provided in the letter nor the survey would surely convince us that EZ is better. To further solid the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide direct comparison about the real performance between the two firms.

solohanUID: 2279589

In the letter the arguer suggests (这里用的一般时，后面又用的过去时。这也是我的一个问题，不清楚究竟该用什么时态呢，但看北美上边的好像用的时一般现在时) Walnut Grove's town council should still use EZ Disposal despite it raised its monthly fee, while ABC' remain unchanged. To prove the arguer's opinion, he or she listed some EZ's  nominal features such as EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC does just once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks which enables the total number of trucks of EZ has exceeded ABC'. What is more, the arguer also cited a survey which shows 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. The arguer’s opinion seems plausible, but after scrutinize (scrutiny or scrutinizing) of these cited facts and surveys would show that the arguer has some fallacies in reasoning. (不好说开头是不是长了一点)
Firstly, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC does just once is not a necessary condition that EZ provides a better service. It is completely possible that EZ's trash collecting procedure is not so efficient that they need to collect twice while once a week is enough for ABC's procedure. And it is also possible that even for EZ's procedure, once a week is sufficient to keep the city clean, but they still provide an extra time of service aiming at showing they are very busy working while (可能用while不是很好) providing an (a) reason for their monthly fee raise.(这个推测好，记下了^-^) To be general, without the evaluation of clean result, EZ's more effort of service does not equal (to) a better service.
Secondly, the statement that EZ has ordered new trucks with which the amount of EZ's trucks will exceed ABC's also fails to convince us that EZ can provide a better service. More trucks, just as more skilled workers and a better management team is just a factor which indicates EZ would provide a more excellent clean environment, but not must(句子结构问题，有点Chinese了). Perhaps those newly bought trucks are planed to be used to clean other towns which means the number of trucks used in Walnut Grove would remain unchanged or even decrease if they even plan to patch some of the old trucks to clean that town. For short, lacking enough information such as the usage of these newly ordered trucks, it is arbitrary to say that EZ can vender a better service just because they have more trucks
Finally, the survey appeared (appearing) in this letter showing 80 percent of the respondents is satisfied with EZ's performance is also not sufficient to convince us that ABC’s work is worse than EZ. As was (deleted) mentioned in the letter, ABC company has already provided trash collection service for Walnut Grove for ten years, which means at the same time, the town's residents has not experienced ABC's service for at least ten years. Though people are 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, it is entirely possible that ABC can provide a more satisfied service than EZ. Without comparison about people's feedback about the two company's service, it is difficult to convince us one is better just by saying it is excellent.
To sum up, the speaker fails to persuade us to believe that Walnut Grove's town council would (should) still make contract with EZ for neither the nominal features provided in the letter nor the survey would surely convince us that EZ is better (这句话结构有问题). To further solid the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide direct comparison about the real performance between the two firms. (结尾略显苍白和仓促)

总的说来写得不错，清楚明白，还有些句子用的很好