arguement17[076G飞跃小组]skysijie第二次作业

SkysijieUID: 2233317

ARGUMENT17- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove townnewspaper. "Walnut Grove'stown council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had thecontract 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. EZcollects 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 lastyear's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."

1．  TC真的仅仅因为EZ收费变高，而ABC没有涨价而不用EZ的吗？不是的
1）  EZ一直使用十年前的垃圾处理技术，给环境带来污染，而ABC采用先进的循环处理技术，不仅不污染环境，还可以使废物循环再利用

2． EZ的涨价真的合理吗？不是的
1）  十年前也是同样的价格同样的服务，但是为什么现在要多收500？
2） 就算EZ改进了服务，但是真的需要多收500吗？很可能200已足够
  
3． 作者给出的3个论据真的就毫无瑕疵吗？不是的
1）  有必要一周两次的频率吗？很可能TC并没有那么多的垃圾
2） 定购的这些车的车况都好吗？
3） 调查是很客观的吗？

Word: 404

This argument presents above is reasonablysound, however, the author fails to recognize all elements necessary toevaluate his situation. The position that EZ Disposal (EZ) should be usedcontinually to collect the trash of Walnut Grove’s (WG) town hardly canconvince me to have the same determination.

To begin with, the author fails to analyzethe question that town council (TC) make the decision that switching from EZ toABC Waste merely depends on the EZ’ price has risen from $2000 to $2500 a month. It is probably has anotherreason. Perhaps, EZ still using traditional technology, which takes method ofburying the crash into earth, to dispose the crash of WG. By doing this, itwould be harm to environment of WG. Meanwhile, ABC is using the latest technology,which disposes crash circularly, to reduce the pollution and advance the rateof use of castoff. In brief, I cannot make any decision without informationabout the technology EZ used.

In an addition, I want to query that it isreasonable to raise charge from the point of EZ. It is obvious that EZ providethe same service to WG with the same pride -2000 a month-in the last 10 years. At the same time, it is ambiguousthat the reason why EZ has to raise to 2500 a month to provide the same service as well as the last 10years. Besides, I concede that EZ raises the pride due to provide a betterservice to WG; it must be increase 500 amonth? May be raise to 2200 amonth is totally enough.
Furthermore, the arguments that the authoraffords to support his decision have blemishes. First, it is not necessary tocollect crash twice a week perhaps. May there has little crash in WG.  Second, whether the additional trucks that EZordered recently are all of well quality to transport crash. It is possiblethat these trucks have no capable of carrying so many crashes twice a week.Third, the satisfying rate from the survey cannot supply a powerful evidence ofthe advantage of EZ.

Consequently, the letter give to the TC hasso many flaws which cannot convince me. Much more work, such as the real reasonthat why TC decided to contrast with ABC but not EZ, and why EZ raise the pricefrom 2000 to 2500 amonth and so no, is needed to make the determination.

juneteaUID: 2294208

This argument presents(presented) above is reasonably sound, however, the author fails to recognize all elements necessary to evaluate his situation. The position that EZ Disposal (EZ) should be used continually to collect the trash of Walnut Grove’s (WG) town hardly canconvince me to have the same determination.

To begin with, the author fails to analyze the question that town council (TC) make the decision that switching from EZ toABC Waste merely depends on the EZ’ price has risen from $2000 to $2500 a month. It is probably has another reason. Perhaps, EZ still using traditional technology, which takes method of burying the crash into earth, to dispose the crash(trash) of WG. By doing this, it would be harm(harmful) to environment of WG. Meanwhile, ABC is using the latest technology,which disposes crash circularly, to reduce the pollution and advance the rate of use of castoff. In brief, I cannot make any decision without informationabout the technology EZ used.

In an addition, I want to query that it is reasonable to raise charge from the point of EZ. It is obvious that EZ provide the same service to WG with the same pride -2000 a month-in the last 10 years. At the same time, it is ambiguous that the reason why EZ has to raise to 2500 a month to provide the same service as well as the last 10 years. Besides, I concede that EZ raises the pride due to provide a betterservice to WG; it must be increase(increased) 500 amonth? May be (a) raise to 2200 amonth is totally enough.
Furthermore, the arguments that the author affords to support his decision have blemishes. First, it is not necessary to collect crash twice a week perhaps. May(Maybe?) there has little crash in WG.  Second, whether the additional trucks that EZordered recently are all of well quality to transport crash. It is possible that these trucks have no capable of carrying so many crashes twice a week(这个不对,没有增加也是一周两次).Third, the satisfying rate from the survey can not supply a powerful evidence of the advantage of EZ.

Consequently, the letter give(given) to the TC has so many flaws which cannot convince me(是不是更好些the letter give(given) to the TC has so many flaws that the argument cannot convince me). Much more work, such as the real reason that why TC decided to contrast with ABC but not EZ, and why EZ raise the price from 2000 to 2500 amonth and so no, is needed to make the determination.(结尾不错）

思路蛮好，还是语法错误教多．

zengyouwenUID: 2284999

arguement17[076G飞跃小组]skysijie第二次作业

ARGUMENT17- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove townnewspaper. "Walnut Grove'stown council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had thecontract 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. EZcollects 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 lastyear's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."

1．  TC真的仅仅因为EZ收费变高，而ABC没有涨价而不用EZ的吗？不是的
1）  EZ一直使用十年前的垃

zengyouwenUID: 2284999

arguement17[076G飞跃小组]skysijie第二次作业

ARGUMENT17- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove townnewspaper. "Walnut Grove'stown council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had thecontract 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. EZcollects 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 lastyear's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."

1．  TC真的仅仅因为EZ收费变高，而ABC没有涨价而不用EZ的吗？不是的
1）  EZ一直使用十年前的垃圾处理技术，给环境带来污染，而ABC采用先进的循环处理技术，不仅不污染环境，还可以使废物循环再利用

2． EZ的涨价真的合理吗？不是的
1）  十年前也是同样的价格同样的服务，但是为什么现在要多收500？
2） 就算EZ改进了服务，但是真的需要多收500吗？很可能200已足够
  
3． 作者给出的3个论据真的就毫无瑕疵吗？不是的
1）  有必要一周两次的频率吗？很可能TC并没有那么多的垃圾
2） 定购的这些车的车况都好吗？
3） 调查是很客观的吗？

Word: 404

This argument presents（改为presented 动词短语修饰时用主动ing和被动的ed形式切记切记！） above is reasonably sound, however, the author fails to recognize all elements necessary toevaluate his situation. The position that EZ Disposal (EZ) should be usedcontinually to collect the trash of Walnut Grove’s (WG) town hardly canconvince me to have the same determination.

To begin with, the author fails to analyzethe question that（ 加the会更好 ）town council (TC) make the decision that switching from EZ toABC Waste merely（感觉不是很好，因为文章已经说了还有汽车和收集垃圾的次数啊） depends on the EZ’ price has risen from $2000 to $2500 a month. It is probably has（有两个谓语了，去掉is） another reason. Perhaps, EZ still using traditional technology, which takes method of burying the crash into earth, to dispose the crash（垃圾不是crash啊，可要记住了啊:) ） of WG. By doing this, itwould be harm（该形容词harmful） to（ 加the会更好 ） environment of WG. Meanwhile, ABC is using the latest technology,which disposes crash（和上边一样就不说了） circularly, to reduce the pollution and advance the rate of use of （改为reusing怎么样）castoff. In brief, I cannot make any decision without any （加上更好，更有说服力）information about the technology EZ used.

In an addition, I want to query that whether（加上更好，更有说服力:) ） it is reasonable to raise （ 加the会更好，指代明确，不那么中国化了 ）charge from the point of EZ. It is obvious that EZ provide the same service to WG with the same pride（price） -2000 a month-in the last 10 years. At the same time, it is ambiguous that the reason why EZ has to raise to 2500 a month to provide the same service as well as the last 10years. Besides, I concede that EZ raises the pride due to provide（providing原因就不用说了吧:) ） a better service to WG; it must be increase（increased） 500 amonth? May be（Maybe） raise to 2200 amonth is totally enough.
Furthermore, the arguments（s去掉） that the author affords to support his decision have blemishes. First, it is not necessary tocollect crash twice a week perhaps. May there has little crash in WG.  Second, whether the additional trucks that EZ ordered recently are all of well（good怎么样） quality to transport crash. It is possiblethat these trucks have no capable of carrying so many crashes(much trash) twice a week.Third, the satisfying rate from the survey cannot supply a powerful evidence of the advantage of EZ.

Consequently, the letter give(given) to the TC hasso many flaws which cannot convince me. Much more work, such as the real reasonthat why TC decided to contrast with ABC but not EZ, and why EZ raise the pricefrom 2000 to 2500 amonth and so no, is needed to make the determination.

其实这篇文章我已经改过了一次，只是上传的时候网络出了问题，没了，只有忍痛在改一次，希望组长珍惜啊
呵呵，:) 感觉写得点到位了，论证还行，但是语法错误感觉有点突出，要加油啊！
有时间的话帮我看看吧顺便给点意见啦，我脸皮厚，不怕的http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=615619&extra=page%3D1