argument17 南智组luckychina第18次作业

luckychinaUID: 2131861

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: 396          TIME: failed          DATE: 2007-1-25

While the town council seems to keep the contract for trash collection services with EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste based on better services though higher prices, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon which trash collection service we should use.

First of all, while the town council discontinues employing EZ after EZ increases the service prices, no evidence indicated a causal relationship between the two incidents. Obviously, the author has assumed that the council refuses EZ just as a result of the increased price, which might not be the case at all. Perhaps the services provided by EZ Disposal are not satisfied. Maybe it collects trash inefficiently or incompletely. Before the speaker rules out these possibilities, the conclusion that we should continue using EZ is untenable.

Even if the town council refuses EZ as a result of price souring, the superior service of EZ is still suspicious. Firstly, there is no causal relationship between more times a week and better service. It is entirely possible that trash in Grove do not necessarily needs to be collected twice a week. Maybe the environmental conditions are not serious enough, or the citizens there have highly moral standards and thus volunteer to keep it clean. Otherwise, ironically the higher frequency of EZ probably proves lower efficiency. To an inefficient company, it seems never be enough to collect trash. Another important thing is that we cannot simply judge the quality of the trash service merely by comparing the number of trucks of each company. Rather, we should consider more important things, such as whether they collect trash on time or not. These scenarios should be taken into account, but not just the frequencies of collecting trash and the number of trucks they process.

Although the conclusion assuredly springs from surveys, the speaker reacts to the data without concerning about other possibilities, which circumvents much of the credibility of the conclusion. For example, have the respondents used ABC and taken full comparison with EZ? Are they sure that EZ’s performance would be as satisfied as last year? The speaker obviously ignores these by only focus on the absolute figure.

In sum, the argument is lack of convincing evidence to well support his recommendation to continue to use EZ although with higher prices. To allocate public funds more efficiently, we should collect more information about two companies.

alive1986UID: 2241739

While the town council seems to keep the contract for trash collection services with EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste based on better services though higher prices, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon which trash collection service we should use.（不赞成这样的开头，在首段应该大概的描述ARG的主要逻辑错误，总领全文，建议还是用传统的开头）

First of all, while the town council discontinues employing EZ after EZ increases the service prices, no evidence indicated a causal relationship between the two incidents. Obviously, the author has assumed that the council refuses EZ just as a result of the increased price, which might not be the case at all. Perhaps the services provided by EZ Disposal are not satisfied. Maybe it collects trash inefficiently or incompletely. Before the speaker rules out these possibilities, the conclusion that we should continue using EZ is untenable.（个人认为，首段应攻击最主要的flaw，但我感觉这里的笔墨并不是最主要的。另外arguer的态度是支持留在EZ，那么arg中应首先批驳作者支持留在EZ的最主要原因）

Even if the town council refuses EZ as a result of price souring, the superior service of EZ is still suspicious. Firstly, there is no causal relationship between more times a week（one time collecting trash more） and better service. It is entirely possible that trash in Grove do not necessarily needs to be collected twice a week. Maybe the environmental conditions are not serious enough, or the citizens there have highly moral standards and thus volunteer to keep it clean. Otherwise, ironically the higher frequency of EZ probably proves lower efficiency. To an inefficient company, it seems never be enough to collect trash. Another important thing is that we cannot simply judge the quality of the trash service merely by comparing the number of trucks of each company（结构安排不合理，这个原论断应另作一段单独分析，因为他是作者给出的另一个理由，如果不能体现出它和你的FIRSTLY中提出的FLAW存在逻辑关系，就应该单独一段批驳，如果有逻辑关系是可以放在一起批的，但原文中出现了“MORE OVER”）. Rather, we should consider more important things, such as whether they collect trash on time or not. These scenarios should be taken into account, but not just the frequencies of collecting trash and the number of trucks they process

Although the conclusion assuredly springs from surveys, the speaker reacts to the data without concerning about other possibilities, which circumvents much of the credibility of the conclusion. For example, have the respondents used ABC and taken full comparison with EZ? Are they sure that EZ’s performance would be as satisfied as last year? （建议改为陈述的语气指明逻辑错误，如果回答是YES呢？这样提问等于没有找出逻辑错误。这些问题是出题人意在提出的，需要你来解释分析）The speaker obviously ignores these by only focus on the absolute figure.

In sum, the argument is lack of convincing evidence to well support his recommendation to continue to use EZ although with higher prices. To allocate public funds more efficiently, we should collect more information about two companies.

qqwuweiyiUID: 2223826

While the town council seems to keep the contract for trash collection services with EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste based on better services though higher prices, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon which trash collection service we should use.(我看不明白，这句话和全文有什么关系)

First of all, while the town council discontinues employing EZ after EZ increases the service prices, no evidence indicated a causal relationship between the two incidents. （我觉得着句话应该这样说：the town council discontinues employing EZ when EZ increases the service prices, but there is no evidence…）Obviously, the author has assumed that the council refuses EZ just as a result of the increased price, which might not be the case at all.(这句话和上面那句话我觉得表达的是一个意思) Perhaps the services provided by EZ Disposal are not satisfied. Maybe it collects trash inefficiently or incompletely. Before the speaker rules out these possibilities, the conclusion that we should continue using EZ is untenable.（我有个疑问，我理解政府因为EZ价格上升，不再和EZ签约而改成ABC公司，是陈述的一个事实；做着对这件事情有质疑，所以引发了下面的讨论。所以，我觉得，这个事实不需要来讨论。仅我的意见。）

Even if the town council refuses EZ as a result of price souring（这个单词用错了吧）, the superior service of EZ is still suspicious. Firstly, there is no causal relationship between more times a week and better service. It is entirely possible that trash in Grove do not necessarily needs to be collected twice a week. Maybe the environmental conditions are not serious enough, or the citizens there have highly moral standards and thus volunteer to keep it clean. Otherwise,（Otherwise不合适，应该表达“正相反“的意思） ironically the higher frequency of EZ probably proves lower efficiency. To an inefficient company, it seems never be（be删去） enough to collect trash. ||Another important thing is that we cannot simply judge the quality of the trash service merely by comparing the number of trucks of each company. Rather, we should consider more important things, such as whether they collect trash on time or not. These scenarios should be taken into account, but not just the frequencies of collecting trash and the number of trucks they process.

Although the conclusion assuredly springs from surveys, the speaker reacts to the data without concerning about other possibilities, which circumvents much of the credibility of the conclusion. For example, have the respondents used ABC and taken full comparison with EZ? Are they sure that EZ’s performance would be as satisfied as last year?（什么时候和last year比较） The speaker obviously ignores these by only focus on the absolute figure.

In sum, the argument is lack of convincing evidence to well support his recommendation to continue to use EZ although with higher prices. To allocate public funds more efficiently, we should collect more information about two companies.

[ 本帖最后由 qqwuweiyi 于 2007-1-29 09:36 编辑 ]

luckychinaUID: 2131861

谢谢alive的认真修改

While the town council seems to keep the contract for trash collection services with EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste based on better services though higher prices, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon which trash collection service we should use.（不赞成这样的开头，在首段应该大概的描述ARG的主要逻辑错误，总领全文，建议还是用传统的开头）不是说开头不用restate吗，恩，我有必要再好好研究一下范文了
First of all, while the town council discontinues employing EZ after EZ increases the service prices, no evidence indicated a causal relationship between the two incidents. Obviously, the author has assumed that the council refuses EZ just as a result of the increased price, which might not be the case at all. Perhaps the services provided by EZ Disposal are not satisfied. Maybe it collects trash inefficiently or incompletely. Before the speaker rules out these possibilities, the conclusion that we should continue using EZ is untenable.（个人认为，首段应攻击最主要的flaw，但我感觉这里的笔墨并不是最主要的。另外arguer的态度是支持留在EZ，那么arg中应首先批驳作者支持留在EZ的最主要原因）
Even if the town council refuses EZ as a result of price souring, the superior service of EZ is still suspicious. Firstly, there is no causal relationship between more times a week（one time collecting trash more） and better service. It is entirely possible that trash in Grove do not necessarily needs to be collected twice a week. Maybe the environmental conditions are not serious enough, or the citizens there have highly moral standards and thus volunteer to keep it clean. Otherwise, ironically the higher frequency of EZ probably proves lower efficiency. To an inefficient company, it seems never be enough to collect trash. Another important thing is that we cannot simply judge the quality of the trash service merely by comparing the number of trucks of each company（结构安排不合理，这个原论断应另作一段单独分析，因为他是作者给出的另一个理由，如果不能体现出它和你的FIRSTLY中提出的FLAW存在逻辑关系，就应该单独一段批驳，如果有逻辑关系是可以放在一起批的，但原文中出现了“MORE OVER”）. Rather, we should consider more important things, such as whether they collect trash on time or not. These scenarios should be taken into account, but not just the frequencies of collecting trash and the number of trucks they process两者之间的确没有什么联系，放在一起是想通过驳作者的论据共同证明TS（the superior service of EZ is still suspicious），这样行吗？

Although the conclusion assuredly springs from surveys, the speaker reacts to the data without concerning about other possibilities, which circumvents much of the credibility of the conclusion. For example, have the respondents used ABC and taken full comparison with EZ? Are they sure that EZ’s performance would be as satisfied as last year?（建议改为陈述的语气指明逻辑错误，如果回答是YES呢？这样提问等于没有找出逻辑错误。这些问题是出题人意在提出的，需要你来解释分析）个人认为，阿狗并不需要作者赞同我的观点，只用证明他的结论是可疑就OK了。所以我想，只要这些问题的答案是doubtful就行，你认为呢The speaker obviously ignores these by only focus on the absolute figure.

In sum, the argument is lack of convincing evidence to well support his recommendation to continue to use EZ although with higher prices. To allocate public funds more efficiently, we should collect more information about two companies.

[ 本帖最后由 luckychina 于 2007-1-29 14:38 编辑 ]

luckychinaUID: 2131861

也谢谢weiwei，呆会慢慢研究~~