argument 17 <浪迹北美>wiregrass 第二周作业argument1 欢迎指正

wiregrassUID: 2275096

17The 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."


In this argument, the author claims that the Walnut Grove should continue to use the EZ Disposal to service the town on trash collection rather than the ABC Waste, which is advocated by the town council. The author presented three reasons of the EZ Disposal: more times of trash collection per week, will own more trucks and exceptional service in the past ten years. However, these advantages can't persuade us that EZ is prefer to ABC, and the town should continue to use employ it.
    Firstly, no evidence could confirm that EZ has advantage to ABC in service. It is true that ABZ collect trash two times per week while ABC only once, but is these a necessity to collect trash two times per week? May be a time per week of trash collection just enough, or may be because EZ is in short of workers and trucks, it doesn't have ability to collect all trashes one time, so it have no choice but collecting trash two times per week. The plan of EZ to order new trucks also can't evidence the advantage of it too, for it is possible that the trucks of ABZ that now is in service are too old thus the company have to order new ones to replace them; even if the trucks are as good as the ones of EZs, may be the EZ Disposal service more towns, so it doesn't have enough trucks to do its service good enough. Additionally, no direct relationship exists between service quality and number of trucks.
    Secondly, the survey can't make us believe that EZ have an exceptional performance. Because we don't know who carried out the last years survey, so we are justified to doubt the survey process may be not correct so the data is not reliable. Even if we assume the data is reliable, does 80 percent of respondent’s satisfaction means the performance of EZ is exceptional. Considering that EZ have serve the town for ten years, residents probably not know how the other corporations' service, so these isn't standard for them to do comparison. May be after they receive the service of other trash disposals, they may change their ideas.
Besides, the EZ charged more money than ABC. Since we don't know the residents whether care about the additional money paid to trash collection, we have the correct reason to doubt whether the additional money is worth to pay. Another problem is the author just lists the advantage of EZ but without pointing out that of ABC.
     Even we admit that EZ is prefer to ABC in service although is not in charge, and the residents here do satisfy with the performance of EZ, we may suspect there are better choices than EZ and ABC. May be there are available trash disposal corporations supply better service or similar level of service to EZ but charge less than it.
    In summary, the author have to provide us the direct evidence the performance of EZ have much advantage than other available corporation and the additional money is worthy to pay. To reach this end, the author should collect the complete information of available corporation, like the quality of trash collection, the satisfaction degree of served residents and charge ect. Only through thoroughly comparison, a founded conclusion could be drawn at last.

janet89757UID: 2278716

In this argument, the author claims that the Walnut Grove should continue to use the EZ Disposal to service the town on trash collection rather than the ABC Waste, which is advocated by the town council. The author presented three reasons of the EZ Disposal: more times of trash collection per week, will own (future performance with) more trucks and exceptional service in the past ten years. However, these advantages can't persuade us that EZ is prefer(superior) to ABC, and the town should continue to use employ it (select EZ to work for them).
    Firstly, no evidence could confirm that EZ has advantage to(好像是用over) ABC in service. It is true that ABC collect trash two times per week while ABC only once, but is these(it这里it是代动词不定式，不能用these) a necessity to collect trash two times per week? May be(Maybe) a time per week of trash collection (is) just enough, or may be (Maybe) because EZ is in short of workers and trucks, it doesn't have ability to collect all trashes one time, so it have no choice but collecting trash two times per week. The plan of EZ to order new trucks also can't evidence (bolster) the advantage of it (EZ’s service) too, for it is possible that the trucks of ABC(应该是EZ吧？) that now is (is不要了) in service are too old thus the company have (has) to order new ones to replace them; even if the trucks are as good as the ones of EZs (LZ好像在这里把EZ和ABC弄混了), may be the EZ Disposal service more towns(不懂), so it doesn't have enough trucks to do its service good enough. Additionally, no direct relationship exists between service quality and number of trucks.(这个论点比较精辟)
    Secondly, the survey can't make us believe that EZ have (has) an exceptional performance. Because we don't know who carried out the last years survey, so we are justified to doubt the survey process may be not correct so the data is not reliable.(这句话好像不通) Even if we assume the data is reliable, does 80 percent of respondent’s satisfaction means the performance of EZ is(is去掉) exceptional. Considering that EZ have serve (served) the town for ten years, residents probably not know(语法有问题) how (about) the other corporations' service, so these(this或者更直接一些satisfaction) isn't standard for them(them 指谁？) to do comparison. May be (Marbe) after they receive the service of other trash disposals, they may change their ideas.
    Besides, the EZ charged more money than ABC. Since we don't know the residents whether care about the additional money paid to trash collection, we have the correct reason to doubt whether the additional money is worth to pay. Another problem is the author just lists the advantage of EZ but without pointing out that (aspects) of ABC.
     Even we admit that EZ is prefer to(more preferable than) ABC in service although is not in charge, and the residents here do satisfy with the performance of EZ, we may suspect there are better choices than EZ and ABC. May be there are available trash disposal corporations supply better service or similar level of service to EZ but charge less than it.
    In summary, the author have to provide us the direct evidence the performance of EZ have much advantage (LZ是要说明advantage的程度大还是数量多？) than other available corporation(s) and the additional money is worthy to pay. To reach this end, the author should collect the complete information of available corporation, like the quality of trash collection, the satisfaction degree of served residents and charge, ect. Only through thoroughly comparison, a founded conclusion could be drawn at last.

[ 本帖最后由 janet89757 于 2007-1-6 22:07 编辑 ]

janet89757UID: 2278716

LZ在文章中不必要的用了很多so，还有一些句子不是很通顺，估计是写完了没来得及改就发上来了，呵呵，可以理解。另外，LZ的思路很广，竟然写了550个字这么多，真的很令人佩服！

tinttiUID: 2216871

In this argument, the author claims thatthe Walnut Grove should continue to use the EZ Disposal to service the town ontrash collection rather than the ABC Waste, which is advocated by the towncouncil. The author presented three reasons of the EZ Disposal: more times oftrash collection per week, will own more trucks and exceptional service in thepast ten years. However, these advantages can't persuade us that EZ is preferto ABC, and the town should continue to use employ it.
    Firstly, no evidence could confirm that EZ has advantage to（over？） ABC in service. It is true that ABZ collect trash two times perweek while ABC only once, but is these a necessity to collect trash two timesper week? May be（maybe）a time per week of trashcollection （is） just enough, or may be（maybe） because EZ is in shortof workers and trucks, it doesn't have ability to collect all trashes one time,so it have（has） no choice but collecting trash twotimes per week. The plan of EZ to order new trucks also can't evidence the advantageof it too, for it is possible that the trucks of ABZ that now is in service aretoo old thus the company have to order new ones to replace them; even if thetrucks are as good as the ones of EZs, may be the EZ Disposal service moretowns, so it doesn't have enough trucks to do its service good enough.Additionally, no direct relationship exists between service quality and numberof trucks.    Secondly, the survey can't make us believe that EZ have anexceptional performance. Because we don't know who carried out the last yearssurvey, so we are justified to doubt the survey process may be not correct so（and） the data is not reliable. Even if we assume the data is reliable,does 80 percent of respondent’s satisfaction means the performance of EZ is exceptional？. Considering that EZhave serve the town for ten years, residents probably not know how the othercorporations' service, so these isn't（is no） standard for them to docomparison. May be after they receive theservice of other trash disposals, they may(will)change their ideas.
Besides, the EZ charged more money than ABC. Since we don't know the residentswhether care about the additional money paid to trash collection, we have thecorrect reason to doubt whether the additional money is worth to pay. Anotherproblem is the author just lists the advantage of EZ but without pointing outthat of ABC.
     Even we admit（admiting） that EZ is prefer(preferable?) to ABC in service although is not in charge（del？）, and the residents heredo satisfy with the performance of EZ, we may suspect there are better choicesthan EZ and ABC. May be there are availabletrash disposal corporations supply better service or similar level of serviceto EZ but charge less than it(不用了吧？).
    In summary, the author have（has） to provide us the directevidence the performance of EZ have much advantage than other availablecorporation and the additional money is worthy to pay. To reach this end, theauthor should collect the complete information of available corporation, likethe quality of trash collection, the satisfaction degree of served residentsand charge ect. Only through thoroughly comparison, a founded conclusion couldbe drawn at last.






ps:比我流畅多了，很多句子很简练，maybe的用法建议去google一下，呵呵