Argument17【Persistence小组】第4次作业

worenleflyUID: 2270315

In this agrument , the author recommends that the decision which the Walnut Grove's town council has made that using ABC
Waste instead of  EZ Disposal  is totally wrong which seems to be logical and sound at the first glance. To establish the
conclusion, the author provides the evidence that EZ services trash collecting twice a week which is a contrast to ABC one
time per week service and has a even larger truck fleet than ABC . What is more , the EZ can also provides exceptional
service . Carefully inspecting the argument , however , we find the conclusion not convincing for several critical fallacies.
First of all, the premise on which the statement is based that the town council switching from EZ to ABC just because the EZ
raising its monthly fee ,while ABC's keeps constant, has not been supported by any effective evidence. In the argument, the
author only points out the influence which money effects on the choosing between the two trash service company, but ignores
some other factors in the decision-making proceeding of Walnut Grove's town council. As we all known , many many up-to-date
techniques have been brought in all the respects of human daily life which draws the whole society's attention gradually like
nonpollution trash handling , more sorts of trash recycling, and so forth. Perhaps ABC has grasp some of the newly effective
techniques in trash disposal which can decrease the air pollution and water pollution ,while the EZ maybe still use  the old
methods to dispose the rubbish which costs less money but makes more pollution. If so, the decision which the town council
has made is advisalbe.
On the other hand , the author considers that the EZ's increasing serivce fee has its own reasons, but no evidence proofs
neither the increasement this time has any relationship with new offered serivce nor the service thesedays has difference
with before. If the serivce which EZ renders now and before is mostly similar , the trash fee increasement will be
unreasonable. For lacking such vital evidence , it is impossible for us to agree that the raising fee is reasonable which
makes the statement unconvincing.
In addition, the evidences to establish the above statement have some flaws. First, the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week doesnot support that ABC may need double fee if it services twice a week in the same. There is no effeective survey revealing the fact that ABC must double its fee for twice collection a week. Second, the fact that EZ has more trucks cannot demenstrates that the trucks will all be used in the trash collection. Last, the fact that 80 percent of respondents satisfy the EZ's performance doesnot mean EZ is the right choice, because it has serviced the town for 10 years and ABC may be the now one to the respondents.So we can conclude that still choosing EZ is a wise decision.
In sum, this argument involves several patent flaws which render it not persuasive as it stands , for the reason that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend adequate support to what the arguer maintains. Before the conclusion is reached , the arguer must make further investigation that EZ is more suitable to the town from all respects than ABC.Moreover , this argument could be better evaluated if we have more detailed information regarding the techniques in disposal and costs of the two company.

vinnieUID: 2104933

In this argument(argument) , the author recommends that the decision which the Walnut Grove's town council has made that using ABC  Waste instead of  EZ Disposal  is totally wrong which(这里的which有歧义，建议分开) seems to be logical and sound at the first glance. To establish the conclusion, the author provides the evidence that EZ services(serves) trash collecting twice a week which is a contrast to ABC one time per week service(多余) and has a even larger truck fleet than ABC (这句有点乱了). What is more, the EZ can also provide exceptional service. Carefully inspecting the argument, however , we find the conclusion not convincing for several critical fallacies.


First of all, the premise on which the statement is based that the town council switching from EZ to ABC just because the EZ raising its monthly fee ,while ABC's keeps constant, has not been supported by any effective evidence(论点切入的很好). In the argument, the author only points out the influence(influence不合适) which money effects on the choosing between the two trash service company, but ignores some other factors in the decision-making proceeding of Walnut Grove's town council. As we all known , many many(去掉) up-to-date techniques have been brought in all the respects of human daily life which draws the whole society's attention gradually like (non pollution trash handling是这样说吗？是中式英语还是你有应用) , more sorts of trash recycling, and so forth. Perhaps ABC has grasp some of the newly effective techniques in trash disposal which can decrease the air pollution and water pollution ,while the EZ maybe still use  the old methods to dispose the rubbish which costs less money but makes more pollution. If so, the decision which the town council has made is advisable(reasonable). On the other hand , the author considers that the EZ's increasing service fee has its own reasons, but no evidence proofs(proof是校对的意思，考虑prove) neither the increasement(fee increasing) this time has any relationship with new offered service nor the service these days has difference with before. If the serivce (service) which EZ renders (now and before放最后) is mostly(almost) similar, the trash fee increasement(没这个用法increase) will be unreasonable. For lacking such vital evidence, it is impossible for us to agree that the raising fee is reasonable which makes the statement unconvincing.


In addition, the evidences to establish the above statement have some flaws. First, the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week doe snot support that ABC may need double fee if it services twice a week in the same. There is no effective(convicing) survey revealing the fact that ABC must double its fee for twice collection a week. Second, the fact that EZ has more trucks cannot demonstrate that the trucks will all be used in the trash collection. Last, the fact that 80 percent of respondents satisfy the EZ's performance does not mean EZ is the right choice, because it has serviced the town for 10 years and ABC may be the now(new) one to the respondents. So we can conclude that still choosing EZ is a wise decision.


In sum, this argument involves several patent flaws which render it not persuasive as it stands , for the reason that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend adequate support to what the arguer maintains. Before the conclusion is reached(made), the arguer must make further investigation that EZ is more suitable to the town from(in) all respects than ABC. Moreover , this argument could be better evaluated if we have more detailed information regarding the techniques in disposal and costs of the two company.

vinnieUID: 2104933

个人觉得这篇ARGUE的攻击点有点偏了，作者的意思是虽然EZ的费用提高了但是它比ABC能提供更好的服务，因此应该使用EZ。 因此，主要的攻击点应该集中于作者的论点不能说明EZ的服务确实比ABC好。但是作者花了大量篇幅集中于费用的提高是否合理的问题上。个人意见。另外，还是注意拼写哦~~~~~~~~~