Argument17 [认真作文互改小组f_ding 的作业]

f_dingUID: 2283047

Argument17

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Walnut town council is mistaken in shifting from EZ Disposal to ABC waste. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week and has ordered additional trucks. In addition, the arguer assumes that EZ provides exceptional service because 80% of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. At first glance, the argument seems sound and convictive, however, it suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, it appears rational that the town council should stick to EZ rather than ABC because EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. However, there is no any evidence in the argument that it is necessary to collect trashes twice in a week. In the town, if there is not so many trashes to collect and collecting once in a week will be enough, then it is luxurious to pay additional 500$ to EZ to collect twice in a week.

In addition, it is true, in some sense, that more trucks mean EZ's capacity to collect trashes and potential better service. But in the above argument does not make it clear whether EZ's original 20 trucks are in good condition. It is possible that these trucks need repairing and maintenance, and EZ has to order more trucks to sustain its collection. If the raise in monthly fee from $2000 to $2500 is due to ordering extra trucks, it will not be convincing to continue to use EZ service.

Finally, to support the argument, the arguer cites the survey conducted last year, which says 80% of respondents agreed that EZ's performance were satisfactory. However, it should be noted that EZ's good performance in the last year was not equivalent that it still perform well this year. Besides, the respondents do not have a chance to evaluate ABC' service, which may be better than EZ's. They may find ABC more satisfactory than EZ if they have a chance to use ABC.

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lending strong support to what the arguer claim. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the reason why EZ raised its monthly fee and trash situation in the town. To better evaluate the argument, we need more evidence that EZ still provide the same service as it did last year and make sure that town residents know better the service of ABC, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

taroUID: 2286098

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Walnut town council is mistaken in shifting from EZ Disposal to ABC waste. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week and has ordered additional trucks. In addition, the arguer assumes that EZ provides exceptional service because 80% of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. At first glance, the argument seems sound and convictive, however, it suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, it appears rational that the town council should stick to EZ rather than ABC because EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. However, there is no (not) any evidence in the argument that it is necessary to collect trashes twice in a week. In the town, if there is not so many trashes to collect and collecting once in a week will be enough, then it is luxurious to pay additional 500$ to EZ to collect twice in a week.

In addition, it is true, in some sense, that more trucks mean EZ's capacity to collect trashes and potential better service. But in(/) the above argument does not make it clear whether EZ's original 20 trucks are in good condition. It is possible that these trucks need repairing and maintenance, and EZ has to order more trucks to sustain its collection. If the raise in monthly fee from $2000 to $2500 is due to ordering extra trucks, it will not be convincing to continue to use EZ service.

Finally, to support the argument, the arguer cites the survey conducted last year, which says 80% of respondents agreed that EZ's performance were satisfactory. However, it should be noted that EZ's good performance in the last year was not equivalent that it still perform well this year. Besides, the respondents do not have a chance to evaluate ABC' service, which may be better than EZ's. They may find ABC more satisfactory than EZ if they have a chance to use ABC.

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lending strong support to what the arguer claim. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the reason why EZ raised its monthly fee and trash situation in the town. To better evaluate the argument, we need more evidence that EZ still provide the same service as it did last year and make sure that town residents know better the service of ABC, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

FYR
1. trash 似乎不用加es
2. 论证结构明晰, 语言流畅, 进步好明显!
3. 自己做的模版吗? 感觉很舒服.