Argument17 【CSMY作文互改小组】第二次作业

yangfangisokUID: 2264598

望大家多提宝贵意见，共同提高
Argument17 【CSMY作文互改小组】第二次作业

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.     差异概念的草率推广。收垃圾频率高，并不代表服务好。也许这个地区不大，不需要垃圾收的这么频繁。
2.     差异概念的草率推广。车多并不代表服务好。也许A公司车刚买，性能和载货能力比E强。正因为如此，E才需要添置新的车辆。
3.     调查反应者缺乏代表性。

In this argument, the author cites the fact that the trash collection of EZ is once more than that of ABC, and that EZ Disposal will have more tracks than ABC Waste used to collecting garbage. The author also cites the survey in which 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ Disposal’s performance last year. On the basis of the evidence, the author substantiates that Walnut Grove should go on contracting with EZ, which has served for ten years, instead of switching to ABC Waste. However, the author’s argument relies on a series of dubious assumption, which render it wholly indefensible as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to establish a relation between frequency of trash collection and company’s efficiency. It is entirely possible that the district is not very large, and not many people live there. The frequency collecting trash once a week adequately keeps the district clean. It is not necessarily and worth for the residents in the district to pay the additional 500 dollar to dispensable items of trash collection. If so, then relied on frequency of trash collection it would make no sense to advocate Walnut Grove to change his opinion.

Additionally, the author has not convinced me that the fact that EZ Disposal will own more trucks than ABC Waste is a good condition as corporation’s efficiency. Although the number of truck owned by two corporations is the same, we have no idea about performance and carrying capacity of trucks in different companies. Perhaps, ABC Waste just purchases trucks whose performance and carrying capacity is far better than EZ Disposal. Just for this, EZ Disposal would like to purchase new trucks very much. Without accounting for this possibility, the author cannot unwarrantedly validate the conclusion that Walnut Grove would still choose EZ Disposal.

Moreover, the arguer provides no assurance that the result of the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. The author has not convinced me that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whose garbage is collected by EZ Disposal. It is more likely that people who lean towards EZ Disposal service are more willing to respond to the survey than others. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the author cannot justifiably draw any firm conclusion whatsoever based on the study.

Last but not at least, even assuming the above can lend strongly support the author’s conclusion, we cannot rule out the possibility that maybe Walnut Grove solely regards monthly fee as an excuse. There are some other reasons. It is more likely that the way of dealing with trash in EZ Disposal is not as good as ABC Waste. The way of dealing with trash in EZ Disposal is old fashion and leads to a lot of environmental pollution. If the useful assumption is ignored, the conclusion cannot be reached.

To bolster the argument more logically, the author would have to provide better evidence concerning that it is worth for citizen to spend more money on the frequency of trash collection. Additionally, useful would be specific information about the reliability of survey.

lyuzheUID: 2273307

In this argument, the author cites the fact that the trash collection of EZ is once more than that of ABC, and that EZ Disposal will have more tracks than ABC Waste used to collecting garbage. The author also cites the survey in which 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ Disposal’s performance last year. On the basis of the evidence, the author substantiates that Walnut Grove should go on contracting with EZ, which has served for ten years, instead of switching to ABC Waste. However, the author’s argument relies on a series of dubious assumption, which render it wholly indefensible as it stands.【楼主的第一段好像很符合北美范文的规范，但我看了论坛里一些人说这种长的开头并不为ETS喜欢，你可以看一下相关的评论哦】

First of all, the author fails to establish a relation between frequency of trash collection and company’s efficiency. It is entirely possible that the district is not very large, and not many people live there. The frequency collecting trash once a week adequately keeps the district clean. It is not necessarily and worth for the residents in the district to pay the additional 500 dollar to dispensable items of trash collection. If so, then relied on frequency of trash collection it would make no sense to advocate Walnut Grove to change his opinion.【这句话不通？】

Additionally, the author has not convinced me that【去掉这个that】 the fact that EZ Disposal will own more trucks than ABC Waste [which keeps a good condition]is a good condition as corporation’s efficiency. Although the number of truck owned by two corporations is the same, we have no idea about performance and carrying capacity of trucks in different companies. Perhaps, ABC Waste just purchases trucks whose performance and carrying capacity is far better than EZ Disposal. Just for this, EZ Disposal would like to purchase new trucks very much[这句话什么意思？EZ非常想买新车 再斟酌一下更合适的表达巴。比如 EZ are eager to purchase new trucks]. Without accounting for this possibility, the author cannot unwarrantedly validate the conclusion that Walnut Grove would still choose EZ Disposal.

Moreover, the arguer provides no assurance that the result of the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. The author has not convinced me that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whose garbage is collected by EZ Disposal. It is more likely that people who lean towards EZ Disposal service are more willing to respond to the survey than others. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the author cannot justifiably draw any firm conclusion whatsoever based on the study.

Last but not at least, even assuming the above can lend strongly support the author’s conclusion, we cannot rule out the possibility that maybe Walnut Grove solely regards monthly fee as an excuse. There are some other reasons. It is more likely that the way of dealing with trash in EZ Disposal is not as good as ABC Waste. The way of dealing with trash in EZ Disposal is old fashion and leads to a lot of environmental pollution. If the useful assumption is ignored, the conclusion cannot be reached.

To bolster the argument more logically, the author would have to provide better evidence concerning that it is worth for citizen to spend more money on the frequency of trash collection. Additionally, useful [丢掉词了吧？]would be specific information about the reliability of survey.

总的来说，楼主是先对三个论据进行批驳，最后就“涨价才不选EZ'' 这一观点批驳，由次到主，很有逻辑。我个人认为是一篇不错的作文。只是再注意语言的准确性就完美了。