argument17 认真作文互改小组第8次作业 Taro

taroUID: 2286098

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."


In this letter, the author argues that the town council commits a mistake switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste for less fee. While the facts about EZ is well presented, it can hardly be concluded from the limited information that the services provided by EZ exceed that of ABC and thus deserve an extra pay.

The key point the author stresses is that the additional services offered by EZ like one more time per week for trash collecting somehow rationalized the extra fee EZ asks for. However, little evidence is given indicating that an extra trash collection is necessary. Maybe there is not much trash produced in the town that only one collection a week is needed. Or maybe the amount of trash EZ twice collects is equal to that ABC collects in only one time, due to poorer efficiency of EZ compared with ABC, which may also explain why EZ orders more trucks---probably it has to because the current ones are worn or totally out of date. Even if one more time collection is needed, the author refers no evidence showing that ABC would charge more than EZ does; perhaps ABC would offer an extra collection for free.   In addition, the author fails to consider the possibility that although ABC collects trash only once a week, it also clean the whole buildings of WG, while EZ just collects the trash incompletely twice a week. Any of these scenarios, if true, gives little credence in suggesting EZ merits an increased fee for its service.

Besides, the survey cited in the letter refers no information about the sample. It is entirely possible that the sample population is not large enough to be representative of the overall population of WG. Or perhaps the majority of the respondents are professional persons who do not know things in home very much. What is more, if the survey contains leading questions that cajoles people to give a positive evaluation as basically "satisfied", then the survey result is too weak to be sufficiently convincing.  

Even if EZ does perform excellently, it is still unfair to infer that EZ Disposal offers a better service than ABC does based solely on the performance of EZ. Except referring that ABC collets trash only once a week, the argument gives no additional information about ABC’s service record, including its credit, what kind of technique it adopts for trash collecting and so forth. Since the town has been using EZ in the past ten years, it is highly possible that the citizens have little idea of how ABC actually performs and thus no comparison between EZ and ABC is available. Now that EZ has risen its service fee, it seems that the author has no reason to forbid the residents to try ABC, which may supply an equally good or even better service at a cheaper price.

Overall, the author's conclusion that EZ Disposal is the better choice for WG town is easily arguable. It overlooks the possibility that ABC Waste could have done a much better job without charging more but merely focuses on the performance of EZ.

f_dingUID: 2283047

In this letter, the author argues that the town council commits a mistake switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste for less fee (这个表达好像不合适哦，fee是可数的啊). While the facts about EZ is well presented, it can hardly be concluded from the limited information that the services provided by EZ exceed that of ABC and thus deserve an extra pay (主语是谁？).

The key point the author stresses is that the additional services offered by EZ like one more time per week for trash collecting somehow rationalized the extra fee EZ asks for. However, little evidence is given indicating that an extra trash collection is necessary. Maybe there is not much trash produced in the town that only one collection a week is needed. Or maybe the amount of trash EZ twice collects is equal to that ABC collects in only one time, due to poorer efficiency of EZ compared with ABC, which may also explain why EZ orders more trucks---probably it has to because the current ones are worn or totally out of date. Even if one more time collection is needed, the author refers (是不是offers更好?) no evidence showing that ABC would charge more than EZ does; perhaps ABC would offer an extra collection for free.   In addition, the author fails to consider the possibility that although ABC collects trash only once a week, it also clean (cleans) the whole buildings of WG, while EZ just collects the trash incompletely twice a week. Any of these scenarios, if true, gives little credence in suggesting EZ merits an increased fee for its service.

Besides, the survey cited in the letter refers no information about the sample. It is entirely possible that the sample population is not large enough to be representative of the overall population of WG. Or perhaps the majority of the respondents are professional persons who do not know things in home very much. What is more, if the survey contains leading questions that cajoles people to give a positive evaluation as basically "satisfied", then the survey result is too weak to be sufficiently convincing.  

Even if EZ does perform excellently, it is still unfair to infer that EZ Disposal offers a better service than ABC does based solely on the performance of EZ. Except referring that ABC collets trash only once a week, the argument gives no additional information about ABC’s service record, including its credit, what kind of technique it adopts for trash collecting and so forth. Since the town has been using EZ in the past ten years, it is highly possible that the citizens have little idea of how ABC actually performs and thus no comparison between EZ and ABC is available. Now that EZ has risen (raised) its service fee, it seems that the author has no reason to forbid the residents to try ABC, which may supply an equally good or even better service at a cheaper price.

Overall, the author's conclusion that EZ Disposal is the better choice for WG town is easily arguable. It overlooks the possibility that ABC Waste could have done a much better job without charging more but merely focuses on the performance of EZ.

55．。5。5．。。。。写的比我的充实多了，加油！

[ 本帖最后由 f_ding 于 2007-1-29 17:49 编辑 ]

taroUID: 2286098

Thx for ur efforts.

janet89757UID: 2278716

In this letter, the author argues that the town council commits a mistake switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste for less fee. While the facts about EZ is well presented, it can hardly be concluded from the limited information that the services provided by EZ exceed that of ABC and thus deserve an extra pay.
(这个开头与别个不同，很有新意)
The key point the author stresses is that the additional services offered by EZ like one more time per week for trash collecting somehow rationalized the extra fee EZ asks for. However, little evidence is given indicating that an extra trash collection is necessary. Maybe there is not much trash produced in the town that only one collection a week is needed. Or maybe the amount of trash EZ twice collects is equal to that ABC collects in only one time, due to poorer efficiency of EZ compared with ABC, which may also explain why EZ orders more trucks---probably it has to because the current ones are worn or totally out of date.（这句话太长了，容易产生歧义，还是分开来陈述比较好） Even if one more time collection is needed, the author refers no evidence showing that ABC would charge more than EZ does; perhaps ABC would offer an extra collection for free. （这个理由有些牵强）  In addition, the author fails to consider the possibility that although ABC collects trash only once a week, it also clean the whole buildings of WG, while EZ just collects the trash incompletely twice a week. Any of these scenarios, if true, gives little credence in suggesting EZ merits an increased fee for its service. （这一段的开头是讲一星期一次还是两星期一次，结尾是讲提高服务费的问题，好像层次有点乱）

Besides, the survey cited in the letter refers no information about the sample. It is entirely possible that the sample population is not large enough to be representative of the overall population of WG. Or perhaps the majority of the respondents are professional persons who do not know things in home very much. What is more, if the survey contains leading questions that cajoles people to give a positive evaluation as basically "satisfied", then the survey result is too weak to be sufficiently convincing.  

Even if EZ does perform excellently, it is still unfair to infer that EZ Disposal offers a better service than ABC does based solely on the performance of EZ. Except referring that ABC collets trash only once a week, the argument gives no additional information about ABC’s service record, including its credit, what kind of technique it adopts for trash collecting and so forth. Since the town has been using EZ in the past ten years, it is highly possible that the citizens have little idea of how ABC actually performs and thus no comparison between EZ and ABC is available. Now that EZ has risen its service fee, it seems that the author has no reason to forbid the residents to try ABC, which may supply an equally good or even better service at a cheaper price.

Overall, the author's conclusion that EZ Disposal is the better choice for WG town is easily arguable. It overlooks the possibility that ABC Waste could have done a much better job without charging more but merely focuses on the performance of EZ.
LZ的这篇作文写得很深刻，几个critiques判的也都很好，我会好好学习的

taroUID: 2286098

Really appreciate ur remarks.
I take ur point and will revise the previous essay.