~4而后生~小组 第四次习作 A11

insideUID: 2303230

ARGUMENT11
The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."

In order to conclude that the available spaces in the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted, the arguer poses several evidence, such as a survey, a statistics data and some logical analysis. Unfortunately, I should indicate that these evidence are not adequately persuasive to support the conclusion.

First of all, the arguer shows a resent survey's result that over ninety percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling in the future in order to prove that the residents have strong commitment to recycling. In fact, the survey is lack of reliability since we are unsure about the quantity of the sample. If the amount of the sample is too small, for example only ten persons are asked, and nine of them have shown the strong commitment, we cannot make a conclusion that most residents strongly support recycling. And also, the respondents are likely volunteer samples and it will mean those who prefer to answer the questions are just those who support recycling. It should be random sample, rather than volunteer sample, that we need in a survey to enhance reliability and validity. Moreover, since it is a result of resent survey, we could not affirm that whether the thought of the residents will be the same after one or two years. It is hasty for us to do such generalization.

The data that town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years, served as an evidence for that more material are recycled, should be doubted. We are not sure whether the residents have used out third times or even more aluminum and paper as they did in previous years, if so, the twice recycling aluminum and paper will not make any sense for there actually would be more garbage. Even if the aluminum and paper they have used in the previous years are all reused, what about other kind of waste, especially the ones that cannot be recycled. If the rubbish which could not be reused are increasing rapidly, the landfill will be soon fully filled.

There are also some logical analysis which are unconvincing. For instance, the arguer says “next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double.” In reality, the causal relationship between charges for garbage pickup and the amount of material recycled are unclear. Maybe some housewives just dislike the material that could be recycled and prefer to throw them away no matter how expensive the charges will be.

Finally, even though the available space in the landfill should last longer than predicted, the arguer gives no proof to illustrate that it will be considerably longer, because this conclusion may need further calculation.

To sum up, the arguer does not adequately demonstrate the landfill could be used markedly longer than predicted for the reason aforementioned, so we can hardly accept his conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 inside 于 2007-3-13 23:48 编辑 ]

napUID: 196976

ARGUMENT11
The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."

In order to conclude that the available spaces in the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted, the arguer poses several evidence, such as a survey, a statistics data and some logical analysis. Unfortunately, I should indicate that these evidences are not adequately persuasive to support the conclusion.

First of all, the arguer shows a resent(recent) survey's result that over ninety percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling in the future in order to prove that the residents have strong commitment to recycling. In fact, the survey is lack of reliability since we are unsure about the quantity of the sample. If the amount of the sample is too small, for example only ten persons are asked, and nine of them have shown the strong commitment, we cannot make a conclusion that most residents strongly support recycling. And also, the respondents are likely volunteer samples and it will mean those who prefer to answer the questions are just those who support recycling. (加个连接副词感觉能好点, e.g. Thus)It should be random sample, rather than volunteer sample, that we need in a survey to enhance reliability and validity. Moreover, since it is a result of resent survey, we could not affirm that whether the thought of the residents will be the same after one or two years. It is hasty for us to do such generalization.

The data that town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years, served as an evidence for that more material are recycled, should be doubted. We are not sure whether the residents have used out third times or even more aluminum and paper(是不是得加上表时间的词? E.g. two years ago) as they did in previous years, if so, the twice recycling aluminum and paper will not make any sense for there actually would be more garbage. Even if the aluminum and paper they have used in the previous years are all reused, what about other kind of waste, especially the ones that cannot be recycled. If the rubbish which could not be reused are increasing rapidly, the landfill will be soon fully filled.

There are also some logical analysis which are unconvincing. For instance, the arguer says “next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double.” In reality, the causal relationship between charges for garbage pickup and the amount of material recycled are unclear. Maybe some housewives just dislike the material that could be recycled and prefer to throw them away no matter how expensive the charges will be(最好加个说明,可能这里的垃圾可以随便的扔).

Finally, even though the available space in the landfill should last longer than predicted, the arguer gives no proof to illustrate that it will be considerably longer, because this conclusion may need further calculation.
(后加的吧? 感觉很缺乏力度)

To sum up, the arguer does not adequately demonstrate the landfill could be used markedly longer than predicted for the reason aforementioned, so we can hardly accept his conclusion.

总体说来错误找的很好
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-626765-1-1.html