Argument17 【Persisitence 小组】第四次作业，还好按时赶出来了

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

17. 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."

This letter recommends that Walnut Grove's (WG's) town council should continue to using EZ, which has had the contract for
trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than switch to ABC Waste. To justify this
recommendation, the author cites the fact that EZ has recently required $500 a month more than ABC Waste wanted for the
service, and gives several evidence, such as EZ's frequency of collecting trash is high than ABC's, EZ's order of additional
trucks and the results of a survey conducted last year, to support the additional fee required by EZ is valuable. Close
scrutiny of these fact and evidence, however, reveals that the recommendation is quite unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the recommendation is based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the reason why WG's town council wants to use
ABC is the financial consideration. It is entirely possible that not the $500 which makes WG's town council advocating
switching from EZ to ABC. Perhaps, EZ is a traditional trash collection company, and many environmental problems left during
its services in the past ten years, and the council can not endure those problems any more. Perhaps ABC is a newly
environmental concerned trash collection company, and it can provide the solution of the environmental problems while it
offers the collection services. For those matters, no matter how low or high the price EZ required is, EZ will not be the
choice of WG's town council in the future.
Secondly, given the problem of prices does be considered, there are still several flaws that can not be ignored in the
evidences the author cites in the letter. The fact that the frequency of EZ's collection is high than ABC, however, doesn't
indicate that the town will benefit from it. For all we know, one collection per week is probably sufficient for disposing
the town's trash, and if so, the high frequency of collection makes no sense to favor EZ.
Thirdly, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks prove little about which service would be better choice of WG's town
council. The author fails to provide evidence that EZ will use these additional trucks to collect trash of WG. Moreover, the
fact that 80 percent of respondents of the survey justifies nothing, for the author provides no assurance that the
respondents can represent the overall population of people whose trash are collected by EZ.
In conclusion, the recommendation of this letter is unconvincing. To bolster it, the author should give more information
about EZ and ABC to ensure us to judge the qualities of the service provided by both of them. Furthermore, more substantiated
evidences should be given to support that the more fees required by EZ is reasonable.

Andy85UID: 2250503

This letter recommends that Walnut Grove's (WG's) town council should continue to [using]use EZ, which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than switch to ABC Waste. To justify this recommendation, the author cites the fact that EZ has recently required $500 a month more than ABC Waste wanted for the service[这句话有歧义哦], and gives several evidences, such as EZ's frequency of collecting trash is higher than ABC's, EZ's order of additional trucks and the results of a survey conducted last year, to support the additional fee required by EZ is valuable[用worth是不是更好]. Close scrutiny of these facts and evidences, however, reveals that the recommendation is quite unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the recommendation is based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the reason why WG's town council wants to use ABC is the financial consideration. It is entirely possible that not the $500 [which 去掉] makes WG's town council advocating switching from EZ to ABC. Perhaps, EZ is a traditional trash collection company, and many environmental problems left during its services in the past ten years, and the council can not endure those problems any more. Perhaps ABC is a newly environmental concerned trash collection company, and it can provide the solution of the environmental problems while it offers the collection services. For those matters, no matter how low or high the price EZ required is, EZ will not be the choice of WG's town council in the future.
Secondly, given the problem of prices does be considered, there are still several flaws that can not be ignored in the evidences the author cites in the letter. The fact that the frequency of EZ's collection is higher than ABC, however, doesn't indicate that the town will benefit from it. For all we know, one collection per week is probably sufficient for disposing the town's trash, and if so, the high frequency of collection makes no sense to favor EZ.
Thirdly, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little about which service would be better choice [of] for WG's town council. The author fails to provide evidence that EZ will use these additional trucks to collect trash of WG. Moreover, the fact that 80 percent of respondents of the survey justifies nothing, for the author provides no assurance that the
respondents can represent the overall population of people whose trash [are] is collected by EZ.
In conclusion, the recommendation of this letter is unconvincing. To bolster it, the author should give more information about EZ and ABC to ensure us to judge the qualities of the service provided by both of them. Furthermore, more substantiated evidences should be given to support that the more fees required by EZ is reasonable.
这篇文章整个布局还是很不错的，逻辑，思想都没什么问题； 语法方面有些小毛病（比如说比较级），要注意哦。语言方面，有些中文的痕迹，有待提高……

[ 本帖最后由 Andy85 于 2007-2-5 19:17 编辑 ]