argument17 【四海一家】第二次作业

yuzhongwumeiUID: 2155222

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 letter, the author insists that they should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste because of many reasons. But in my opinion, this letter needs more clear evidence and convincing reasoning to persuade others.

First of all, the author states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. However, the author fails to consider the fact that quantity has nothing to do with quality, at least in this case. It is true that EZ collects twice as often as ABC, which seemingly indicates EZ is superior to ABC. But maybe it is just because EZ has a poor service quality, or a low working efficiency that it has to double its times. In that case, EZ will be a bad choice because they may have a low-ranking service, which has a great probability to displease residents.

Furthermore, the author tells us that EZ has ordered additional trucks, but he does not mention whether ABC also orders more trucks. It is highly possible that ABC has order more trucks than EZ does; or EZ has to order more trucks because of ABC did it first, thus brings about potential threat. Besides, the author fails to provide solid information concerning the condition of the trucks. It is possible that ABC has ordered many new trucks while EZ just orders some second-handed trucks. Unless the author provides more solid information, he cannot convince others to support his idea.

Finally, according to last year’s town survey, 80 percent of respondents stated that they were satisfied with EZ. On one hand, the validity of the survey is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of employee and respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the survey. Also, one example is rarely sufficient to establish a conclusion; and we find no sign of such procedure for random sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents are representative of the overall population. On the other hand, even if the survey is valid, there are still no signs to show that these residents do not like ABC. It is highly possible that though they do like EZ, they actually prefer ABC. Before the author ruling out these possibilities, his idea is unwarranted.

In conclusion, the author can hardly persuade others even if he is right. To be objective and fair enough, the author should provide clear evidence and particular details of the facts, so that others can evaluate either ABC or EZ is beneficial for residents.

新的一步UID: 2194020

In this letter, the author insists that they should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste because of many reasons. But in my opinion, this letter needs more clear evidence and convincing reasoning to persuade others.很简洁,值得学习

First of all, the author states that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. However, the author fails to consider the fact that quantity has nothing to do with quality, at least in this case. It is true that EZ collects twice as often as ABC, which seemingly indicates EZ is superior to ABC. But maybe it is just because EZ has a poor service quality, or a low working efficiency that it has to double its times. In that case, EZ will be a bad choice because they may have a low-ranking service, which has a great probability to displease residents.可以补充即使两者的质量相同,但也许城市的垃圾不多,一次一星期就够了,没必要两次,那么没必要为了多余的工作付钱.

Furthermore, the author tells us that EZ has ordered additional trucks, but he does not mention whether ABC also orders more trucks这个想法不错,就是信息给的不完整吧. It is highly possible that ABC has order more trucks than EZ does; or EZ has to order more trucks because of ABC did it first, thus brings about potential threat. Besides, the author fails to provide solid information concerning the condition of the trucks. It is possible that ABC has ordered many new trucks while EZ just orders some second-handed trucks. 还有一种可能供参考,就是预定的卡车不是为这个城市服务的Unless the author provides more solid information, he cannot convince others to support his idea.

Finally, according to last year’s town survey, 80 percent of respondents stated that they were satisfied with EZ. On one hand, the validity of the survey is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of employee and respondents, it is impossible to access这里的access的意思是? the validity of the survey. Also, one example is rarely sufficient to establish a conclusion; and we find no sign of such procedure for random sampling, thus doubting whether the respondents are representative of the overall populationpopulation用residents of the town感觉更好. On the other hand, even if the survey is valid,让步啊,不错,我推荐把这个错误另起一段 there are still no signs to show that these residents do not like ABC这个想法也很好. It is highly possible that though they do like EZ, they actually prefer ABC. Before the author ruling out these possibilities, his idea is unwarranted.

In conclusion, the author can hardly persuade others even if he is right. To be objective and fair enough, the author should provide clear evidence and particular details of the facts, so that others can evaluate either ABC or EZ is beneficial for residents.
作者把关键的错误都找出来了,行文也很流畅,开头结尾值得我学习, 作者文章中间部分是以批驳一个例子为一段吧,这样的话没问题,只是个人感觉若是要指出一个错误为一段,段段之间用让步,看起来很好些.
纯属拙见.

diligentgirlUID: 2298483

感觉语气上似乎有些强烈，即使文中用到了几处让步，但有些词用得有些绝对，例如impossible,hardly 等。偶个人认为说理还是委婉一些更容易让人接受。^^

yuzhongwumeiUID: 2155222

说得有道理啊!!
以后一定注意~~
真诚感谢中~~~~~