argument17 <aspire小组>第5次作业

kooyiiUID: 2177986

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."

字数：481                                    
In the letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, which has provided trash collection services to Walnut Grove for ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To justify this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week. The author claims further that although currently both companies have a same number of trucks, EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author cites a recent survey in which 80 percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with EZ's service. I find these claims problematic in several respects.

First of all, the author should make sure Whether it is necessary that the trash should be disposed twice a week. Perhaps the town’s rubbish is not so much that one collection per week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Besides, it is entirely possible that EZ Disposal arranges trash by traditional methods, which cause pollution problem .Whereas ABC adopt a new process which can recycle the wastes and meanwhile protect the environment. If so, the arguer unfairly provide evidences that the service of collecting trash twice a week is more effective than once a week. Therefore，it is not essential that Walnut Grove contracts with EZ Disposal.


Secondly, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the additional trucks and more services offered. It is likely that EZ does not plan to use its new trucks for collecting Walnut Grove’ trash, or it would use in other areas. For example, EZ wants to provide other services such as transportation to another town using these additional trucks. Further, it is possible that the current trucks are enough or even superfluous to dispose trash.

Finally, the author provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. The data is not credible. The author provides no evidence that the total number of the survey and the survey’s respondents are representative of the group of people those trash collected by EZ or ABC. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that few people join in this survey, and that the people who satisfy the service by EZ participate in this survey, and that though the respondents pleased with EZ's service, they do not pay more money on the service by EZ, and that the people of the Walnut Grove town who just know the EZ company are not familiar with the ABC Disposal which maybe do better job.

In sum, the argument is weak on several grounds. To bolster it the author must provide specific evidence that it is essential that EZ collects trash twice a week, and that the additional trucks ordered by EZ will improve service to Walnut Grove. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, we would need more information about the general situation of the survey’ respondents.

iamstoicUID: 2294314

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."

字数：481                                    
In the letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, which has provided trash collection services to Walnut Grove for ten years, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To justify this recommendation the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week. The author claims further that although currently both companies have a same number of trucks, EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author cites a recent survey in which 80 percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with EZ's service. I find these claims problematic in several respects.

First of all, the author should make sure Whether 为什么大写it is necessary that the trash should be disposed twice a week. Perhaps the town’s rubbish is not so much that one collection per week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Besides, it is entirely possible that EZ Disposal arranges trash by traditional methods, which cause pollution problem .Whereas ABC adopt a new process which can recycle the wastes and meanwhile protect the environment. If so, the arguer unfairly provide evidences that the service of collecting trash twice a week is more effective than once a week. Therefore，it is not essential 这个词语ms有点奇怪that Walnut Grove contracts with EZ Disposal.


Secondly, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the additional trucks and more services offered. It is likely that EZ does not plan to use its new trucks for collecting Walnut Grove’ trash, or it would use in other areas. For example, EZ wants to provide other services such as transportation to another town using these additional trucks. Further, it is possible that the current trucks are enough or even superfluous to dispose trash.

Finally, the author provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. The data is not credible. 这个短句好象和前面的句子意思重复The author provides no evidence that the total number of the survey and the survey’s respondents are representative of the group of people those trash collected by EZ or ABC. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that few people join in this survey, and that the people who satisfy the service by EZ participate in this survey, and that though the respondents pleased with EZ's service, they do not pay more money on the service by EZ, and that the people of the Walnut Grove town who just know the EZ company are not familiar with the ABC Disposal which maybe do better job.这个句子的真正主语太长了.我觉得可以分开写

In sum, the argument is weak on several grounds. To bolster it the author must provide specific evidence that it is essential that EZ collects trash twice a week, and that the additional trucks ordered by EZ will improve service to Walnut Grove. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, we would need more information about the general situation of the survey’ respondents.

这篇文章无论从论证,还是结构,还有语言,都不错!!!修改者水平有限,所以改动的地方不多.
加油!