Argument17 [AWB小组]第一次作业

spspliUID: 2237504

刚刚开始接触Argument，大家猛拍！^_^

The several reasons given above seem reasonable to prove that it is a mistake - Walnut Grove’s twon council has advacated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just because EZ recently raised its monthly fee, while ABC’s fee is the same as before. The argument tells us the only and one reason why Walnut Grove’s town council stops cooperating with EZ Disposal is the increasement of the monthly fee. It obviously want to persuade the  readers that giving up the EZ Disposal which has at least three advantages for just one reason is not wise.

First of all, I think the economic factor should be a primary consideration.The town council will save $500 a month for the people in the town. ABC doesn’t change its fee and it naturally has the advantage of price. Under this condition, there is no reason to choose an expensive one and not to give a chance to the economic one.

Mentioned to the first reason – EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. The argument tries to persuade us EZ is better. However, in fact we cannot judge which trash collection company is better only because one of them collect one more time than the other one every week. The number of the collection times can not prove anything. It is quite possible that ABC is much more efficient than EZ, therefore collecting once a week is enough for them. It can finish the tasks which EZ has to make double efforts to handle. There is another one possibility. Maybe there are not so many trashes in the town and collecting only once a week is proper for both of the two companies. EZ has done some unnecessary jobs for the last ten years.

About the second one – EZ will have more trucks while both of the two companies have owned 20 turcks seperately. The argument tries to persuade us that more trucks can prove that EZ is better. It ignores some details. Maybe the 20 trucks in ABC are new while the ones in EZ are very old and need repairing frequently. What is more, perhaps a fleet of 20 trucks is sufficient for collecting the trashes in Walnut Grove.

Refer to the third reason – a survey shows that 80 percent of respondents were “satisfied” with EZ’s performance. About this survey, we don’t know who are those respondents. Maybe EZ provided really good services in some specific areas and most respondents are from those areas in Walnut Grove by chance. Maybe the citizens who didn’t take part in that survey were not satisfied with EZ’s performance. Most important, that survey was provided by EZ itself as an exceptional service. Whether we should trust that survey or not is doubtful. Every company would like to show its advantages while to hide its disadvantages, especially when it has a competor. What is more, maybe more respondents were satisfied with ABC’s performance last year, but the survey didn’t tell us that. We can not compare those two companies simply according to a one-side survey at all.

In a sum, the argument concludes that the Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken according to the reasons above are not so logical. It did’t analyze all the details behind that decision made by the council, so it is not reasonable.
(555words)

[ 本帖最后由 spspli 于 2007-2-23 22:59 编辑 ]

amblueUID: 2264518

The several reasons given above seem reasonable to prove that it is a mistake - Walnut Grove’s twon council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just because EZ recently raised its monthly fee, while ABC’s fee is the same as before. The argument tells us the only and one (意义重复，可以不要) reason why Walnut Grove’s town council stops cooperating with EZ Disposal is the increasement ( increase is also a NOUN ) of the monthly fee. It obviously wants to persuade the readers that giving up the EZ Disposal which has at least three advantages for just one reason is not wise.
First of all, I think the economic factor should be a primary consideration.The town council will save $500 a month for the people in the town. ABC doesn’t change its fee (and), so/thus it naturally has the advantage of price. Under this condition, there is no reason to choose an expensive one and not to give a chance to the economic one.

Mentioned (我查了字典，mention后面没有接to的使用方法, 如果是要用“至于”的意思的话，可以用As To) to the first reason – EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. The argument tries to persuade us EZ is better. However, in fact we cannot judge which trash collection company is better only because one of them collect one more time than the other one every week.(这句话有一点拗口，中文大体可以解释为：事实上我们不能判断哪个更好，仅仅因为其中的一个比另一个每星期收垃圾的次数多。尽管我能明白你的意思，但这句话的逻辑是混乱的，建议后面一句可以改成only according to the time they collect the trash per week. 或者，可以把前一句改成if fact we cannot say EZ is better than ABC only because…) The number of the collection times can not prove anything. It is quite possible that ABC is much more efficient than EZ, therefore collecting once a week is enough for them (指代不明，for the company还是 for the residents, 在这里我觉得应该是for the residents 更有说服力). It can finish the tasks which EZ has to make double efforts to handle. There is another one possibility. Maybe there are not so many trashes in the town and collecting only once a week is proper for both of the two (both 就是指两者，不会有第三者的出现，所以这里用of the two 就显得有些累赘) companies. EZ has done some unnecessary jobs for the last ten years.

About the second one – EZ will have more trucks while both of the two companies have owned 20 turcks seperately. The argument tries to persuade us that more trucks can prove that EZ is better. It ignores some details. Maybe the 20 trucks in ABC are new while the ones in EZ are very old and need repairing frequently. What is more, perhaps a fleet of 20 trucks is sufficient for collecting the trashes in Walnut Grove.

Refer to the third reason – a survey shows that 80 percent of respondents were “satisfied” with EZ’s performance. About this survey, we don’t know who are those respondents. Maybe EZ provided really good services in some specific areas and most respondents are from those areas in Walnut Grove by chance. Maybe the citizens who didn’t take part in that survey were not satisfied with EZ’s performance. Most important(should be “importantly”, I don’t know why, I am weak at Grammar but I saw an example on LONGMAN Dictionary: you must finish, and, more importantly, you must finish on time.), that survey was provided by EZ itself as an exceptional service. Whether we should trust that survey or not is doubtful. Every company would like to show its advantages while to hide its disadvantages, especially when it has a competor (competitor). What is more (there is a “what’s more” in your essay, you can use Moreover instead), maybe more respondents were satisfied with ABC’s performance last year, but the survey didn’t tell us that. We can not compare those two companies simply according to a one-side survey at all.

In a sum (In sum 是固定用法), the argument concludes that the Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken according to the reasons above are not so logical. It did’t analyze all the details behind that decision made by the council, so it is not reasonable.结尾有些weak, 可以再加一些对此argument的改进意见，使你的论证更加完整。
(555words 1 hour)

[ 本帖最后由 amblue 于 2007-2-10 19:23 编辑 ]

spspliUID: 2237504

让诸位拍的更猛烈些吧，谢谢暖暖！！！