Argument17 Hamming 小组冲刺作业,没有状态 郁闷

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

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: 265          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-28

At the argument above, the arguer is pays no effort on emphasis the benefits of EZ Disposal. It seems well-presented at first glance. However, the article’s author has ignored the most important point--what is the most vital reason that led the Walnut Grove’s (WG) council to decide adopting ABC instead of EZ. To reveal the argument how groundless is, I will point out several chiefly logic flaws following.

To the beginning, the arguer presumed (guessed) that the reason why WG town council selected ABC rather than EZ is that the former has a lower price than the latter. At the same time, there is no evidence he listed could demonstrate this assertion. Perhaps, WG town is not necessary the twice collecting trash per week, thereby the excess part of $500 fee is wasteful if select EZ. In addition, EZ enhanced its price but gave no explanation, which could be able to angered WG town council, even if they have cooperated for ten years.

Furthermore, although there is a closely amount of trucks between EZ and ABC, the arguer revealed that EZ is intend to purchase more for addition. This condition indicate that EZ is faced a shortage of available trucks, maybe this is the significant reason which led it defeat in competition with ABC. Moreover, it might be that most EZ's trucks are too old ones, and they are prepared to discard. Meanwhile, ABC’s trucks are relative newer than EZ’s, addition with their lower fee, then WG town council selected it for coagent

Finally, the arguer claimed that, about EZ's performance last year, a survey upon the town’s residents gave a satisfied level--80 percent—which is an exceptional service considered of the arguer. In fact, 80 percent is not a wondrously work as the arguer’s described. Moreover, this evidence is also not sound support that the EZ is a better choice than ABC. Since given that we are not informed any information refers to ABC's satisfaction degree, we can not draw a fair comparison between them two. Therefore, before making any conclusion, the arguer had better provide some concrete surveys concern with the ABC in the past.

In sum, the argument is not well-reasoning as it stands. There is no reason that WG town council must be select EZ for cooperation, thereby, the arguer should to make clear that why WG selected ABC. Furthermore, to better evaluate his recommendation, I need more detailed information about ABC—maybe a survey as the EZ—to compare their two accurately.

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

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: 265          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-28

At the argument above, the arguer is pays no effort on emphasis the benefits of EZ Disposal. It seems well-presented at first glance. However, the article’s author has ignored the most important point--what is the most vital reason that caused the Walnut Grove’s (WG) council to decide adopting ABC instead of EZ. To reveal the argument how groundless is, I will point out several chiefly logic flaws following.

.首先，把作者的观点列出来To the beginning, the arguer presumed (assumption guessed) that the reason why WG town council selected ABC rather than EZ is that the former has a lower price than the latter，紧接着就指出其漏洞， At the same time, (meantime) there is no evidence he listed could demonstrate this assertion. 以及漏洞可能的原因The arguer only observed that EZ does one more time collection than ABC a week, yet this is merely the surface case. 他因Perhaps, the twice collecting garbage per week is unnecessary to the WG town, thereby the excess part of $500 fee is wasteful if select EZ. In addition, EZ enhanced its price but without any explanation, which might be able to angered WG town council, even if they have cooperated for ten years.

把作者的第二个观点列出来Furthermore, although there is a closely amount of trucks between EZ and ABC, the arguer revealed that EZ is intend to purchase more for addition.漏洞This condition just indicates that EZ is faced with a shortage of available trucks. 造成的后果It is entirely possible that this is the significant reason which led (to cause) EZ defeated in competition with ABC. 他因Moreover, it might be that most EZ's trucks are too old ones, and they are prepared to discard. Meanwhile, ABC’s trucks are relative newer than EZ’s, addition with their lower fee, then WG town council selected it for coagent.

把作者的第三个观点列出来Finally, the arguer claimed that, about EZ's performance last year, a survey upon the town’s residents gave a satisfied level--80 percent—which is an exceptional service considered of the arguer. 陈述这个观点的漏洞In fact, 80 percent that is not a wondrous job as the arguer’s description. 不足Furthermore, this evidence is also not sound support that the EZ is a better choice than ABC. 他因Since given thatwe are not informed any information refers to the ABC's satisfaction degree, we could not to draw a fair comparison between them two.总结句Therefore, before making any ultimate conclusion, some concrete surveys, which concerned with the ABC’s performance, as the one about EZ is needed.

In sum, the argument is not well-reasoning as it stands. There is no reason that WG town council must be select EZ for cooperation, thereby, the arguer should make clear that why WG selected ABC at first. Furthermore, to better evaluate his recommendation, I need more detailed information about ABC—maybe a survey as the EZ—to compare their two accurately.

sisong2003UID: 2154005

我觉得论证很强啊，比我的好N倍

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

都是后来改的,模打的时候失败的很.

huorUID: 2278377

In the argument above, the arguer pays no effort on emphasizing the benefits of EZ Disposal.这句话我不能理解，估计考场上相当危险 It seems well-presented at first glance. However, the (article’s这个词是完全的废话） author has ignored the most important point--what is the most vital reason that leads the Walnut Grove’s (WG) council to decide adopting ABC instead of EZ. To reveal the argument how groundless is, I will point out several chiefly logic flaws following.最后一句没有功能，也最好不要 gter上的论调是一律反对restate，不过我觉得考虑中国学生实际，对绝大多数人来说还是restate的好。虽然ETS可能会觉得没有内容，但站在文章的角度，这是文章完整的必不可少的一环。最好能达到自己的restate能把下文要攻击的错误暴露得比较明显的目标，这就百利无一害了 To the beginning, the arguer presumed (guessed) that the reason why WG town council selected ABC rather than EZ is that the former has a lower price than the latter. At the same time, there is no evidence he指代什么 listed could demonstrate this assertion. Perhaps, WG town is not necessary the删  twice collected per week, thereby the excess part of $500 fee is wasteful if select EZ. In addition, EZ enhanced its price but gave no explanation, which could be able to（和could不重复吗） angered WG town council, even if they have cooperated for ten years. Furthermore, although there is a close amount of trucks between EZ and ABC, the arguer reveals that EZ is删 intend to purchase more for addition. This condition indicates that EZ is删 faced a shortage of available trucks, maybe this is the significant reason which leads its failing in competition with ABC. Moreover, it might be that most EZ's trucks are too old ones删 , and they are prepared to be discarded. Meanwhile, ABC’s trucks are relative newer than EZ’s, addition with their lower fee, then WG town council selected it for coagent 楼主想到了卡车的新旧，这个我没想到，值得学习。但是这一段的主要问题除去语法错误，是原文的思路要说明EZ 的运力从卡车数上说比ABC强，楼主的论证反而这整个倒成了弱点。让人感觉没有理解透原题，也很危险 Finally, the arguer claimed that, about EZ's performance last year, a survey upon the town’s residents gave a satisfied level--80 percent—which is an exceptional service considered by the arguer. In fact, 80 percent is not a wondrously这个词没见过，不错 work as the arguer described. Moreover, this evidence is also not soundly supported that the EZ is a better choice than ABC. Since删 given that we are not informed (do not have) any information refering to还不如of ABC's satisfaction degree, we can not do a fair comparison between them two两词删一个 . Therefore, before making any conclusion, the arguer had better provide some concrete surveys concern with the ABC in the past. In sum, the argument is not well-reasoned as it stands. There is no reason that WG town council must be删  select EZ for cooperation, thereby, the arguer should to删  make clear that why WG selected ABC. Furthermore, to better evaluate his recommendation, I need more detailed information about ABC—maybe a survey as the EZ—to compare the two accurately.

[ 本帖最后由 huor 于 2007-1-29 21:03 编辑 ]

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

谢谢修改,受益匪浅,改出来不少我的老毛病,语法!!