Argument17【Persistence 小组】第四次作业

vinnieUID: 2104933

At the first sight, the author’s view seems perfect. According to the following statement, Walnut Grove’s town council should still choose EZ Disposal for trash services although EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500. The main reason is that EZ can offer more satisfying service than ABC. However, after further considering his argument I am afraid that it is unconvincing as there are several flaws in it.

       First, author emphasizes that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. It sounds like EZ’s service is twice than ABC with only 25% price higher. However we ignore an important thing, whether collecting trash twice a week is really necessary or not? If collecting trash once a week can satisfy daily needs, there is no reason to consider that EZ offers a better service as colleting trash twice a week is waste of recourse.

       Second, author say that because EZ owns same number of trucks as ABC, and EZ had ordered additionally trucks, we can anticipate that EZ’s service will be more valuable. However, the increase of the number of trucks can’t suggest this. Author didn’t tell us what benefit can be brought to us by adding the number of trucks. If company can use 20 trucks to finish assignment everyday, we can assume that EZ only want to get more contracts to receive more profit and the fee rises mainly because of buying new trucks. ‘More car better service’ can’t stand if author can’t provide more information about the use of trucks.

       At last, from the survey author suggests that because 80 percent of respondents satisfied the EZ’s performance it reflects that EZ really provides a better service. However, in my opinion, the survey means nothing without contrast. It is possible that over 90 percent of respondents satisfy ABC’s service. If so, shall we still hold that EZ can provide a more valuable service definitely? Author should provide another survey about ABC so as to know which service’s reputation is better.

       In sum, I agree that it is possible that EZ offers better service. Since there are still quite lots of flaws, further investigation and more information is needed before we make an ultimate decision. We will choose ABC with no doubt if there is no distinctiveness between two company’s services.

[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-2-5 10:38 编辑 ]

weiweiwawaUID: 2208145

题号写错了吧！。。。

iamstoicUID: 2294314

At the first sight, the author’s view seems perfect. According to the following statement, Walnut Grove’s town council should still choose EZ Disposal for trash services although EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500. The main reason is that EZ can offer more satisfying service than ABC这个作者没说是主要原因,但是你可以写是他的假设之一. However, after further considering his argument I am afraid that it is unconvincing as there are several flaws in it.

       First, author emphasizes that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. It sounds like EZ’s service is twice than 这个表达有点问题ABC with only 25% price higher. However we(怎么是我们?) ignore an important thing, whether collecting trash twice a week is really necessary or not? 正常语序怎么用问号?If collecting trash once a week can satisfy daily needs, there is no reason to consider that EZ offers a better service as colleting trash twice a week is waste of recourse什么语法成分.

       Second, author say that because EZ owns the same number(amount) of trucks as ABC, and EZ had ordered additionally用形容词 trucks, we can anticipate that EZ’s service will be more valuable. However, the increase of the number of trucks can’t suggest this. Author didn’t tell us what benefit can be brought to us by adding the number of trucks. If company can use 20 trucks to finish assignment everyday, we can assume that EZ only want to get more contracts (好象没提到吧)to receive more profit and the fee rises mainly because of buying new trucks. ‘More car better service (没见过这样的简写)’ can’t stand if author can’t provide more information about the use of trucks.

       At last, from the survey author suggests that because 80 percent of respondents satisfied the EZ’s performance it reflects that EZ really provides a better service. However, in my opinion, the survey means nothing without contrast. It is possible that over 90 percent of respondents satisfy ABC’s service. If so, shall we still hold that EZ can provide a more valuable service definitely? Author should provide another survey about ABC so as to know which service’s reputation is better.

       In sum, I agree that it is possible that EZ offers better service. Since there are still quite lots of flaws, further investigation and more information is needed before we make an ultimate decision. We will choose ABC with no doubt if there is no distinctiveness between two company’s services(好象太绝对了吧).

总体不错,错误都找到并且批判了

批改者水平有限,如有错误,欢迎指出