Argument17 【flying小组】第二次作业

千年子猫UID: 2237656

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: 388          TIME: 0:27:06          DATE: 2007-2-18
提纲
收垃圾的次数并不能说明质量
卡车的数量不代表卡车的功能
没有数据说明使用者对ABC的满意度

The letter gives the result about choosing ABC instead of EZ. The author believes it is wrong and points out although EZ is expensive than ABC, the EZ company clean ways more than ABC in the same period of time. What is more, author also gives the number of trunks to give base to it. And he believes the survey of EZ is out of question for most respondents provide satisfaction.  

This is not fair for ABC. Because even if ABC collects trash only once and EZ collects twice, it can not declare the quality of EZ is better. Quantity does not mean the Quality, and efficiency is more important when people are checking a company's competence. ABC only collects once, but maybe it could just do as good as EC who does twice. For the amount of litter may not extremely change in a week, then if a company could do it only once, how could we deny its success?

The believable of the author’s result is weaken by the numbers of trunks. There are all kinds of trunks, and we do not know what they are. The volume, technology and many other things should be considered when we take it as a factor. There are not any data like these in the above letter. Maybe the trucks of less number have better function than the ones in larger amount. So the number of trunk is not a reason for the choice.

It is also a problem when we consider the respondents' ideas. We do not know how many people in town are satisfied with the survey of ABC. Only after the author has asked the contentment of ABC can we compare the survey of them via data. But we do not have data of ABC in the letter, so we can not figure that ABC has a worse survey than EZ.

The conclusion about choosing ABC is not believable and not fair for EZ. The author needs to get more data in many angles, especially in the efficiency and satisfaction of both ABC and EZ. And the trucks should be compared not only in the numbers, but in functions, too. The letter is not logically in many points of views, so we could not follow it only because the reasons the author shows above.

[ 本帖最后由 千年子猫 于 2007-2-19 12:56 编辑 ]

cccc_magicboyUID: 2299530

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: 388          TIME: 0:27:06          DATE: 2007-2-18
提纲
[可以看一下这里的思路https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;extra=&page=1]
收垃圾的次数并不能说明质量
卡车的数量不代表卡车的功能
没有数据说明使用者对ABC的满意度

The letter gives the result about choosing ABC instead of EZ. The author believes it is wrong and points out although EZ is[少more？] expensive than ABC, the EZ company clean ways more than ABC in the same period of time.[感觉还不如直接说EZ两次，ABC一次] What is more[moreover?], author also gives the number of trunks to give base to it[will buy more trucks?]. And he believes the survey of EZ is out of question for most respondents provide satisfaction. [这句更不太通啊，不过意思我倒明白]

This[It?] is not fair for ABC. Because even if ABC collects trash only once [a month?]and EZ collects twice, it can not declare[that?] the quality of EZ is better[than the other]. Quantity does not mean the Quality, and efficiency is more important when people are checking a company's competence. ABC only collects once, but maybe it could just do as good as EC who does twice. For the amount of litter may not extremely change in a week, then if a company could do it only once, how could we deny its success?

The believable of the author’s result is weaken by the numbers of trunks. There are all kinds of trunks, and we do not know what they are. The volume, technology and many other things should be considered when we take it as a factor. There are not any data like these in the above letter. Maybe the trucks of less number have better function than the ones in larger amount. So the number of trunk is not a reason for the choice.

It is also a problem when we consider the respondents' ideas. We do not know how many people in town are satisfied with the survey of ABC. Only after the author has asked the contentment of ABC can we compare the survey of them via data. But we do not have data of ABC in the letter, so we can not figure that ABC has a worse survey than EZ.

The conclusion about choosing ABC is not believable and not fair for EZ. [题目再好好读下，你的理解不太对，这可是要反对的内容啊]The author needs to get more data in many angles, especially in the efficiency and satisfaction of both ABC and EZ. And the trucks should be compared not only in the numbers, but in functions, too. The letter is not logically in many points of views, so we could not follow it only because the reasons the author shows above.

[结构有，但是内容不太正确啊，要马上改一改，可以参考这里
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;extra=&page=1
]

千年子猫UID: 2237656

谢谢噢~~辛苦你啦
那个最后一句你说理解不对的地方我写得时候写混乱了……里面还是有很多的句法问题，谢谢你给我指出来，要好好加油~~
刚刚开始写ARGU，原来的确没有想过内容上的问题，谢谢你给我提供的思路，一定好好学习！