Argument17 【CSMY作文互改小组】第二次作业

solohanUID: 2279589

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 435          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-3
1. 一周收两次垃圾并不意味着就好过一周收一次。次数并不是决定好坏的因素
２．结论基于的调查有偏差
３．作者忽视了价格的影响


The editor opposes the town council on choosing the new disposal company, and recommends continuing using EZ Disposal. He tries to present several advantages of EZ and compare it to the new one ABC. However, the editor fails to see the important factors and overemphasize the unrelated issues.

His recommendation is firstly based on the times of collecting trashes. But is twice better than once definitely? Obviously, the editor begs the question. Possibly, only one time for collecting is enough and even more convenience than twice, for people need not put the rubbish in the appointed place twice a week. The editor also falsely considers the times of collecting as the primary factor in evaluating a disposal company. What does times mean? Without evidence, it could not mean the quality of the service, the efficiency of the operation, and such like. It is possible that they collect twice because of they have no enough resources to dispose these trash at one time. Maybe their workers are not active in working so they would not like to collect more at a time.

When the editor compares EZ with ABC, he tends to ignore the whole picture but focus on a biased appearance. He cites a survey which was conducted one year before without detailed information about the survey and the respondents. Are the respondents representative for all the habitants in the town? No information could warrant this. Even the survey is justified, what it can demonstrate? It is equally possible that the citizens would be satisfied with ABC even not better. Since they have not used ABC, there is no certain answer at the time. Moreover, what the survey revealed is something in the past, would EZ be the same good or better or worse is a not sure. While there are still 20% persons were not satisfied, these portions of persons may oppose using EZ.

The editor intends to guarantee the raising price of EZ from the two aspects discussed above. However, even assuming the two evidences is convincing, they cannot lend credence to the raised fee. Why it raised fee while ABC could still keep a low price? Should people turn to the company with higher price? Maybe the people consider it is not worthy $500 for EZ's advantage on ABC. Possibly, people think the service of ABC would be sufficient and is worthy $2000, thus they could not take EZ into account any more.

In sum, the editor holds a tending attitude and offers insufficient reasons. He should investigate the factors the citizens concern about and compare the two companies in more detail.

ctexUID: 2241178

The editor opposes the town council on choosing the new disposal company, and recommends continuing using EZ Disposal. He tries to present several advantages of EZ and compare it 【these】to the new one  ABC. However, the editor fails to see the important factors and 【tries to】overemphasize the unrelated issues.

His recommendation is firstly based on the times of collecting trashes. But is twice better than once definitely? Obviously, the editor begs the question【这一句没看明白】. Possibly, only one time for collecting is enough and even more convenience than twice, for people need not put the rubbish in the appointed place twice a week. The editor also falsely considers the times of collecting as the primary factor in evaluating a disposal company. What does【do】 times mean? Without evidence, it could not mean the quality of the service, the efficiency of the operation, and such like. It is possible that they collect twice because of【of 去掉】 they have no enough resources to dispose these trash at one time. Maybe their workers are not active in working so they would not like to collect more at a time.

When the editor compares EZ with ABC, he tends to ignore the whole picture but focus on a biased appearance. He cites a survey which was conducted one year before 【ago】without detailed information about the survey and the respondents. Are【Do】 the respondents representative for all the habitants in the town? No information could warrant this. Even the survey is justified, what it can demonstrate? It is equally possible that the citizens would be satisfied with ABC even not better. Since they have not used ABC, there is no certain answer at the time. Moreover, what the survey revealed is something in the past, would EZ be the same good or better or worse is a【a去掉】 not sure. While there are still 20% persons were not satisfied, these portions of persons may oppose using EZ. 【这一段的论述层层逼近，感觉非常compelling】

The editor intends to guarantee the raising price of EZ from the two aspects discussed above. However, even assuming the two evidences is convincing, they cannot lend credence to the raised fee. Why it raised fee while ABC could still keep a low price? Should people turn to the company with higher price? Maybe the people consider it is not worthy $500 for EZ's advantage on ABC. Possibly, people think the service of ABC would be sufficient and is worthy $2000, thus they could not take EZ into account any more.

In sum, the editor holds a tending attitude and offers insufficient reasons. He should investigate the factors the citizens concern about and compare the two companies in more detail.

【感觉整篇文章论述得非常地有力，整体组织也是非常的有逻辑，层层递进。收了。呵呵~~】

[ 本帖最后由 ctex 于 2007-1-3 23:49 编辑 ]