Argument17 同批同进

maiqidiliwuUID: 2119412

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."
WORDS: 335          TIME: 上午 1:00:56          DATE: 2007-2-12

   In this analysis, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove town(WG)  should still cooperate with EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. To justify the claim, the arguer compares the frequency of waste collecting and the number of trucks owned. In addition, he cites the result of last year's survey. The argument is unfounded because the arguer oversimplifies the problem and its solution.



    To begin with, the arguer thinks EZ provides better service than ABC for it collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. However, it does not establish a general causal relationship between waste-collection frequency and the service quality, other possibilities have to be considered. For an instance, ABC may be much more efficient than EZ thus it only need to collect once a week while at the same condition ABC has to do twice.
     拾两次的效果＝拾一次的



     Secondly, no evidence offered to support that all the ordered additional trucks will be used to collect the waste in Walnut Grove town. Perhaps those trucks are ordered for another town and will be used in WG by no means. Or that maybe many trucks now in EZ are too old to be used again so EA has to buy new ones to replace them. In this case we cannot infer that EZ will offer better service solely from the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks.
     新卡车不一定用在这里；也许该更换老的了



     Finally, the result of this survey is far from enough to indicate that EZ provides exceptional service. First the arguer does not mention the total number of people participated in this survey, It is entirely possible that only a small proportion of residents have sent their feedback, thus their opinion cannot represent the residents' in WG as a group. Besides, those who sent their feedback, by accident, are those who like EZ more than that that dislike EZ. In shot, we need those people's personal information to judge the result's value.
     没有总的数量；愿意回馈人的信息不知，样本也许不均匀



      In conclusion, although the arguer have offered some evidence to support his or her recommend, none of them is sufficient. We still need more detailed information before we reach our conclusion  

[ 本帖最后由 maiqidiliwu 于 2007-2-12 22:38 编辑 ]

uniqueguyUID: 2183043

In this analysis, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove town(WG)  should still cooperate with EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. To justify the claim, the arguer compares the frequency of waste collecting and the number of trucks owned by the two companies. In addition, he cites the result of last year's survey. The argument is unfounded because the arguer oversimplifies the problem and its solution.   
To begin with, the arguer thinks EZ provides better service than ABC for it collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. However, it does not establish a general causal relationship between waste-collection frequency and the service quality, other possibilities have to be considered. For an instance, ABC may be much more efficient than EZ thus it only need to collect once a week while at the same condition ABC has to do twice.个人认为段落最后要用一句话指明一下作者的观点是错误的
     拾两次的效果＝拾一次的   

Secondly, no evidence offered to support that all the ordered additional trucks will be used to collect the waste in Walnut Grove town. Perhaps those trucks are ordered for another town and will be used in WG by no means. Or that maybe many trucks now in EZ are too old to be used again so EA has to buy new ones to replace them. In this case we cannot infer that EZ will offer better service solely from the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks.     新卡车不一定用在这里；也许该更换老的了     

Finally, the result of this survey is far from enough to indicate that EZ provides exceptional service. First the arguer does not mention the total number of people participated in this survey, It is entirely possible that only a small proportion of residents have sent their feedback, thus their opinion cannot represent the residents' in WG as a group. Besides, those who sent their feedback, by accident, are those who like EZ more than that that dislike EZ. 这句有点别扭,这样改你看怎么样：Besides, it may be an accident that the result of the survey shows that residents like EZ better than ABC. And the result of the survey may show the opposite opinion when it is conducted at other times. In shot, we need those people's personal information to judge the result's value.     没有总的数量；愿意回馈人的信息不知，样本也许不均匀      

In conclusion, although the arguer have offered some evidences to support his or her recommend, none of them is sufficient.可以把逻辑错误再概括地说一下 We still need more detailed information before we reach our conclusion  
文章结构清晰，对主要逻辑错误都进行了分析，建议结尾段再概括一下逻辑错误。此外，还要注意一下文章格式，段与段间要空一行。



[ 本帖最后由 uniqueguy 于 2007-2-12 23:03 编辑 ]

maiqidiliwuUID: 2119412

Besides, those who sent their feedback, by accident, are those who like EZ more than that that dislike EZ.
我想表达的意思是 可能恰好 喜欢ez的人更喜欢送回他们的反馈，也就是说 样本分布不均匀
我觉的你给我的句子和我的意思不完全一样
你有社么更好的建议吗？

谢谢你的意见