Argument17 [Cracking小组第五次作业]

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

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."

In the argument above, the arguer points out that Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken to has advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just because EZ's free is $500 higher than that of ABC. Then, to support the conclusion, the arguer implies that it is reasonable for EZ to charge more free: EZ collects trash more frequency than ABC, EZ has order more trucks, and the survey conducted last year shows that most respondents consider EZ's performance as satisfied. Although the argument is well-presented, however, it is not well-reasoned.

To begin with, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove's town chooses to use ABC Waste because it is cheaper is a mistake to make. However, the arguer provides no evidence of the financial condition of Walnut Grove's town council, so that it cannot lead strong support to the conclusion that the town council is mistaken. It could be possible that the council has other project calling for much money to invest on. Or else, the town council is in shortage of money, so that it cannot afford such expensive a free that EZ requires.

Moreover, the arguer reaches the conclusion to continue using EZ is bases on the assumption that the EZ' is better than ABC. However, the arguer mentions nothing about the performance of ABC except the fact that ABC Waste collects trash once a week. Nor does he mention the management of ABC, or the work efficiency or the serving attitude of ABC. Could it be possible that ABC' work is much better than that of EZ's? Then, as it is also cheaper, why not choose EZ's?

The facts that the frequency that EZ collects trash is twice of ABC's and that EZ has added more trucks does little to support the conclusion that EZ's free is reasonable for the town. It could be possible that the residents living in this town do not need to collect rubbish twice a week or the trucks EZ has brought are used for service in certain towns other than the town of Walnut Grove. Besides, the survey sited in the argument does not imply that EZ is a better choice than ABC, as the 'satisfying' respondents might not show their real opinion, or they were just familiar with EZ as it had work for them for 10 years.

To sum up, the argument presents several fallacies which make the conclusion of the arguer not logically sounded. To better support the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information of the finance of the town council and more information of how ABC runs.

sylvie0211UID: 2296270

Argument17 Cracking小组第五次作业
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."

In the argument above, the arguer points out that Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken to hashave advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just because EZ's free is $500 higher than that of ABC. Then, to support the conclusion, the arguer implies that it is reasonable for EZ to charge more free: EZ collects trash more frequency than ABC, EZ has order more trucks, and the survey conducted last year shows that most respondents consider EZ's performance as satisfied. Although the argument is well-presented, however, it is not well-reasoned.

To begin with, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove's town chooses to use ABC Waste because it is cheaper is a mistake to make加个may这样不太绝对的词比较好吧，毕竟咱也没证据不是. However这里的逻辑关系是因果不是转折，换个连词吧, the arguer provides no evidence of the financial condition of Walnut Grove's town council, so that it cannot lead strong support to the conclusion that the town council is mistaken政府没有财政问题并不表示这个结论就是错误的，只能说因为价格便宜这个理由是没有根据的. It could be possible that the council has other project calling for much money to invest on. Or else, the town council is in shortage of money, so that it cannot afford such expensive a free that EZ requires.这一段我其实没有太看懂，开始说作者没有交待WG的财政状况，后来又说WG可能真的是没钱，如果根据你WG真的没钱的假设，推出政府没有更多得钱来处理垃圾，
那作者说的政府是因为ABC便宜才选择它的就是成立的，根本没有反驳掉，反而是支持了他

Moreover, the arguer reaches the conclusion to continue using EZ is bases on the assumption that the EZ' is better than ABC. However, the arguer mentions nothing about the performance of ABC except the fact that ABC Waste collects trash once a week. Nor does he mention the management of ABC, or the work efficiency or the serving attitude of ABC. Could it be possible that ABC' work is much better than that of EZ's? Then, as it is also cheaper, why not choose EZ's?我们讨论的便宜的是ABC…
这段理由说得好，我一点都没想到呢…

The facts that the frequency that EZ collects trash is twice of ABC's and that EZ has added more trucks does little to support the conclusion that EZ's free is reasonable for the town. It could be possible that the residents living in this town do not need to collect rubbish twice a week or the trucks EZ has brought are used for service in certain towns other than the town of Walnut Grove. Besides, the survey sited in the argument does not imply that EZ is a better choice than ABC, as the 'satisfying' respondents might not show their real opinion, or they were just familiar with EZ as it had work for them for 10 years.

To sum up, the argument presents several fallacies which make the conclusion of the arguer not logically sounded. To better support the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information of the finance of the town council and more information of how ABC runs.
我觉得Argument不应该只反对作者最后的结论，作者的论据（比如他说政府是因为便宜才选择ABC的），例证，调查都是反驳的对象，这仅是个人想法，欢迎探讨～嗯，还有一个我觉得是挺有说服力的反驳就是ABC可能处理垃圾更环保使用循环、变废为宝之类的，而EZ使用填埋的方式污染环境。我想什么就说什么了，别生气哈，还是那句话，可以探讨咯～

[ 本帖最后由 sylvie0211 于 2007-2-6 22:26 编辑 ]

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

In the argument above, the arguer points out that Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken to hashave advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just because EZ's free is $500 higher than that of ABC. Then, to support the conclusion, the arguer implies that it is reasonable for EZ to charge more free: EZ collects trash more frequency than ABC, EZ has order more trucks, and the survey conducted last year shows that most respondents consider EZ's performance as satisfied. Although the argument is well-presented, however, it is not well-reasoned.其实首段不需要这么详细地将题目描述一遍，真正的重头戏在后面的论述；而且开头太冗长会占用宝贵的时间，在限时的情况下尤其不利

To begin with, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove's town chooses to use ABC Waste because it is cheaper is a mistake to make. However, the arguer provides no evidence of the financial condition of Walnut Grove's town council, so that it cannot lead strong support to the conclusion that the town council is mistaken. It could be possible that the council has other project calling for much money to invest on. Or else, the town council is in shortage of money, so that it cannot afford such expensive a free that EZ requires.这点我没有想到啊～～

Moreover, the arguer reaches the conclusion to continue using EZ is bases on the assumption that the EZ' is better than ABC. However, the arguer mentions nothing about the performance of ABC except the fact that ABC Waste collects trash once a week. Nor does he mention the management of ABC, or the work efficiency or the serving attitude中式英语的味道很重，最好查查服务态度的道地英语表达 of ABC. Could it be possible that ABC' work is much better than that of EZ's? Then, as it is also cheaper, why not choose EZ's?

The facts that the frequency that EZ collects trash is twice of ABC's and that EZ has added more trucks does little to support the conclusion that EZ's free is reasonable for the town. It could be possible that the residents living in this town do not need to collect rubbish twice a week 与其说居民不需要，不如说垃圾不多，这样客观一点or the trucks EZ has brought are used for service in certain towns这个certain最好换 other than the town of Walnut Grove.其实这样说像在可以凑字数，其实一个other towns就可以吧 Besides, the survey sited cited in the argument does not imply that EZ is a better choice than ABC, as the 'satisfying' respondents might not show their real opinion, or they were just familiar with EZ as it had work for them for 10 years.survey是argument中最好攻击的靶子，这里可以详细、深入一点，单独列为一段也是可以的

To sum up, the argument presents several fallacies which make the conclusion of the arguer not logically sounded. To better support the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information of the finance of the town council and more information of how ABC runs.

总体来说还是不错的！只是在survey上的攻击可以更加详细和深入
只是个人看法，有不足之处还请多多指教啊