argue17【LOVEAW小组】第2次作业

arbilUID: 2270268

提纲：
1．  前提错误，没有证据表明委员会换公司只是由于费用问题。这个决定可能是他们事先经过了充分调查才做出的。
2．  一周两次可能没有必要
3．  卡车的数目不能等同于服务的提高。没有来自公司的信息来证明这些卡车将用于提高本地服务的质量。相反，购买卡车可能是为了别处的市场，增加了公司开支而使其提升费用，间接的给当地居民带来负担。
4．  并没有说明额外服务是什么，是否对居民带来足够的好处和吸引力。
5．  调查不一定全面，是否代表了大多数居民的意愿。而且调查也没有关于居民是否愿意提高费用的方面。即便如此，居民也可能有理由相信新公司会带来更好的服务，从而做出决定。
6．  总结，作者举出的理由并不能说明原公司的服务质量优秀，以及提高费用的合理原因。
In this argument, the arguer advocate that Walnut Grove’s town should stick to EZ disposal, which raises its monthly fee for 25% recently, rather than turning to turn to ABC Waste, with an affirmation that EZ disposal can offer better service. However, this argument is problematic for some reasons.
First of all, the arguer gives us an impression that major reason why town council want to change the trash disposers is the raised fee of EZ disposal. There is no evidence to prove it. We don’t see the information about the lack of council’s budget, which would make it difficult for the council to maintain an relatively more expensive service. So it is possible that the suggestion from the council has already been made upon a solid investigation of service quality, market price and actual requirement of inhabitants.
Next, the seemingly advantage of EZ disposal is that it collects trash twice a week, while ABC Waste just does once. It seems to be reasonable for EZ disposal charging only 25% more for double quantity work. However, there maybe not so much trash in Walnut Grove’s town as to been collected two times a week. If one collection a week is enough, it is absurd to ask residents to pay for the redundant service.
Another questionable reason presented by arguer is EZ disposal’ ordering of additional trucks. He/she ignores the probability that these trucks have to replace the former ones which are too old to be used anymore, or will serve for new clients of the company in other areas. It’s unfair for native inhabitants to be charged with the raising fees while they won’t see any improvement in the service.
When it comes to exceptional services of EZ disposal, we have no idea whether they are indispensable or not. The arguer should give us more information if these extra services are thought to be attractive and worth the higher fee.
And the survey finally presented by the arguer is not convincing at all, since maybe it is not an all-around investigation. We don’t know how many people are involved in the survey and if they are still ‘satisfied’ after the fee has been increased by 20%. And even most inhabitants are satisfied, there is still probability that they prefer to change the serving company after knowing more about ABC Waste and a fairly comparison between the two.
In sum, arguer doesn’t supply enough information to prove that EZ disposal has better service and rational reason to increase its fee. More convincing evidences with deep analysis, comparison and evaluation should be provided if arguer want to prove the expensive service of EZ disposal really worth it.

welcomebsUID: 2235250

In this argument, the arguer advocate that Walnut Grove’s town should stick to EZ disposal, which raises its monthly fee for 25% recently, rather than turning to turn to ABC Waste, with an affirmation that EZ disposal can offer better service. However, this argument is problematic for some reasons.
First of all, the arguer gives（sends） us an impression that major reason why town council want to change the trash disposers is the raised fee of EZ disposal. There is no evidence to prove it. We（避免出现i.we这种词) don’t see theinformation about the lack of council’s budget, which would make it difficult for(避免出现make,do之类词语，arise difficulty for) the council to maintain an(a) relatively more expensive service. So it is possible that the suggestion from the council has already been made(considered) upon( at he basis of) a solid investigation of service quality, market price and actual requirement of inhabitants.
Next, the seemingly advantage of EZ disposal is that it collects trash twice a week, while ABC Waste just does once. It seems to be reasonable for EZ disposal charging only 25% more for double quantity work. However, there maybe not so much trash in Walnut Grove’s town as to been collected two times a week. If one collection a week is enough, it is absurd to ask(require) residents to pay for the redundant service.
Another questionable reason presented by arguer is EZ disposal’ ordering of additional trucks. He/she ignores the probability that these trucks have to replace the former ones which are too old to be used anymore, or will serve for new clients of the company in other areas. It’s unfair for native inhabitants to be charged with the raising fees while they won’t see any improvement in the service.
When it comes to exceptional services of EZ disposal, we have no idea whether they are indispensable or not. The arguer should give us more information if these extra services are thought to be attractive and worth the higher fee.
And the survey finally presented by the arguer is not convincing at all, since maybe it is not an all-around investigation. We don’t know how many people are involved in the survey and if they are still ‘satisfied’ after the fee has been increased by 20%. And even most inhabitants are satisfied, there is still probability that they prefer to change the serving company after knowing more about ABC Waste and a fairly comparison between the two.
In sum, arguer doesn’t supply enough information to prove that EZ disposal has better service and rational reason to increase its fee. More convincing evidences with deep analysis, comparison and evaluation should be provided if arguer want to prove the expensive service of EZ disposal really worth it.

和issue的问题一样，分析得不够彻底，只是指出了很多错误。
同时建议采用一些批判arg错误的常用句型，taisha上面的作文版电子书上有总结
还有arg比较简单，但是怎么拿高分是关键。
建议看看这篇文章，也是以这片arg做例子。http://bbs.taisha.org/archiver/tid-641894.html

arbilUID: 2270268

多谢，在具体用词上学到很多，那篇文章粗略看了一下，窃喜看到了第一句逻辑上的错误:cool: 不过在整体论述上的把握上非常有指导意义，收下了，呵呵