argument17 又一部阿狗大作啦啦

xiaoguaituUID: 2269972

In this letter, the speaker asserts that Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, rather than switching to ABC Waste. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but I find it problematic in several respects after a close examination.

To begin with, the arguer points out that EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Grove for as long as ten years, so it is quite possible that citizens of Grove, the arguer may included, know little about ABC. The mere fact that ABC collects only once per week hardly suffices to inform us how well ABC is in trash collection. Except for frequency of trash collection, there are still many factors which should be considered to evaluate a waste collection company, such as the technology it adopts. Perhaps the ABC utilizes the crane to lift the dustbin to pour rubbish to the truck; while EZ just uses manpower.

Secondly, one advantage of EZ over ABC is that the former collects trash one more time than the latter. Then, does it make sense to take an additional collection? Will the town benefit from it? Yet it is not necessarily the case. Provided that landfill of Grove is well managed, causing no problem of environment contamination, then collect only once is suffice. On the contrary, EZ’ twice collection may reveal its low efficiency. Nobody would like to hire low efficient company just for an additional task which is nearly unnecessary.

The fact that EZ has ordered more trucks lends no strong support to the assumption that it is better than ABC. No information is offered when the trucks will be received. Common sense tells us that the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Grove’s decision. Even if EZ receives the new trucks as soon as possible, there is to evidence to show that the company will make use of them to collect garbage for Grove. Perhaps EZ will use them to serve another town, in order to enlarge its business.

Last but not the least, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative. As mentioned above, people of Grove may know little about ABC, so it is quite possible that they respond without comparing the two companies. Moreover, as the speaker states, the survey was conduced last year, but the fee is raised recently, so, are the respondents still satisfied with EZ’s performance despite of the higher price? The argument gives no sign.

In sum, as it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. Only after close and detailed comparison and evaluation of the two companies can Grove town determine with which corporation to contract.

asheeUID: 2237370

In this letter, the speaker asserts that Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, rather than switch to ABC Waste. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but I find it problematic in several respects after a close examination.(很简洁，脱离了模板)

To begin with, the arguer points out that EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Grove for as long as ten years, so it is quite possible that citizens of Grove, including the arguer, know little about ABC. The mere fact that ABC collects only once per week hardly suffices to inform us how good ABC is in trash collection. Except for frequency of trash collection, there are still many factors  should be considered to evaluate a waste collection company, such as the technology it adopts. Perhaps the ABC utilizes the crane to lift the dustbin to pour rubbish to the truck; while EZ just uses manpower.(这例子有点夸张了，只说ABC装备好，因此有可能比EZ效率高就行)

Secondly, one advantage of EZ over ABC is that the former collects trash one more time than the latter. Then, does it make sense to take an additional collection? Will the town benefit from it? Yet it is not necessarily the case. Provided that landfill of Grove is well managed, causing no problem of environment contamination, then collect only once is suffice. On the contrary, EZ’ twice collection may reveal its low efficiency. Nobody would like to hire low efficient company just for an additional task which is nearly unnecessary.（以上两段应该连在一起写。着重应该说有可能一次就够了，因此EZ的第二次不一定必要）

The fact that EZ has ordered more trucks lends no strong support to the assumption that it is better than ABC. No information is offered when the trucks will be received. Common sense tells us that the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Grove’s decision. Even if EZ receives the new trucks as soon as possible, there is no evidence to show that the company will make use of them to collect garbage for Grove. Perhaps EZ will use them to serve another town, in order to enlarge its business.

Last but not the least, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative. As mentioned above, people of Grove may know little about ABC, so it is quite possible that they respond without comparing the two companies. Moreover, as the speaker states, the survey was conduced last year, but the fee is raised recently, so, are the respondents still satisfied with EZ’s performance despite of the higher price? （例子很新颖，很好）The argument gives no sign.

In sum, as it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. Only after close and detailed comparison and evaluation of the two companies can Grove town determine with which corporation to contract.（简洁明了，很有自己的风格呢）

非常有进步的一篇，继续加油！^^

xiaoguaituUID: 2269972

In this letter, the speaker asserts that Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, rather than switching to ABC Waste. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but I find it problematic in several respects after a close examination.

To begin with, one advantage of EZ over ABC is that the former collects trash one more time than the latter. Does it make sense to take an additional (extra) collection? Will the town benefit from it? Yet it is not necessarily the case. Provided that landfill of Grove is well managed, causing no problem of environment contamination, then collect only once is suffice, which ironically shows the low efficiency of EZ. While ABC, adopting high-technology, probably, just takes one time to efficiently finish the task. Nobody would like to hire low efficient company just for an additional task which is nearly unnecessary.

The fact that EZ has ordered more trucks lends no strong support to the assumption that it is better than ABC. No information is offered when the trucks will be received. Common sense tells us that the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Grove’s decision. Even if EZ receives the new trucks as soon as possible, there is no evidence to show that the company will make use of them to collect garbage for Grove. Perhaps EZ will use them to serve another town, in order to enlarge its business.

Last but not the least, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative. The arguer points out that EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Grove for as long as ten years, so it is quite possible that citizens of Grove know little about ABC, and then getting no chance to try its service. Therefore, in the survey they may respond without  fairly comparing the two companies, while after a close comparison, the population may be more satisfied with ABC’s service. Moreover, as the speaker states, the survey was conduced last year, but the fee is raised recently, so, are the respondents still satisfied with EZ’s performance despite of the higher price? The argument gives no sign.

In sum, as it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. Only after close and detailed comparison and evaluation of the two companies can Grove town determine with which corporation to contract.

yafengweiyiUID: 2201278

In this letter, the speaker asserts that Grove should continue using EZ Disposal, rather than switching to ABC Waste. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but I find it problematic in several respects after a close examination.


To begin with, the arguer points out that EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Grove for as long as ten years, so it is quite possible that citizens of Grove, the arguer may included, know little about ABC.应该及早说明作者逻辑错误 The mere fact that ABC collects only once per week hardly suffices to inform us how well ABC is in trash collection.应该ABC好的可能性，这说反了 Except for frequency of trash collection, there are still many factors which should be considered to evaluate a waste collection company, such as the technology it adopts.下面3段都在说ez 可能不如abc, 但它们都以应包含在本句的there are still many factors中 Perhaps the ABC utilizes the crane to lift the dustbin to pour rubbish to the truck应对truck这一细节做一完整交代，while EZ just uses manpower.

Secondly, one advantage of EZ over ABC is that the former collects trash one more time than the latter. Then however, does it make sense to take an additional collection? Will the town benefit from it? Yet obviouslyit is not necessarily the case. Provided that landfill of Grove is well managed原文中没有说明well managed, causing no problem of environment contamination, then collect only once is suffice原文中也没有is suffice. On the contrary, EZ’ twice collection may reveal its low efficiency. Nobody would like to hire low efficient company just for an additional task service which is nearly unnecessary.

The fact that EZ has orderedowned more trucks lends no strongconvincing support to the assumption that it is better than ABC. No information is offered when the trucks will be received.besides Common sense tells us that the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Grove’s decision. Even if EZ receives the new trucks as soon as possiblein the near future, there is tono evidence to show that the company will make use of them to collect garbage for Grove. Perhaps EZ will use them to serve another town, in order to enlarge its business.

Last but not the least, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative. As mentioned above, people of Grove may know little about ABC, so it is quite possible that they respond without comparing the two companies. Moreover, as the speaker states, the survey was conduced last year, but the fee is raised recently, so, are the respondents still satisfied with EZ’s performance despite of the higher price? The argument gives no sign.

In sum, as it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. Only after close and detailed comparison and evaluation of the two companies can Grove town determine with which corporation to contract.