argument11【~4而后生~小组】第四次作业,今天发烧了还写作业,5555

潘猫UID: 2238279

"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."

WORDS: 423          TIME: 00:35:48          DATE: 2007-3-13

The available space in West Egg's landfill seems should last for considerably longer than predicted in the arguer's point of view, which is based on the doubled number of recycling aluminum and paper, compared with previous years. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a survey, which shows that over ninety percent of the respondents would do more recycling in the future. However, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies cited below.

To being with, the result of the survey is neither relevant nor convincing. Firstly, it only mentions that ninety percent of the respondents claim that they prefer to do more recycling in the future while does not show the number of the respondents and the percentage of the respondents among all the residents. It is reasonable to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general attitude of the citizens in West Egg. Furthermore, the survey just gives a description of the respondents' psychological characteristics, not their realistic behaviors. As we know, although sometimes, behavior may totally reflect people's psychological state, in most of the cases, one's behavior is affected by many other factors. In this case, the respondents may still use the landfill under the influence of other unforeseeable factors.

Another problem that weakens the logic of the argument is that the arguer fails to provide evidence of the whole situation of recycling in West Egg.  According to the argument, only two kinds of garbage, aluminum and paper garbage, are recycled largely, whether the other garbage are recycled as aluminum and paper is unknown.  And will the residents will maintain to recycle the garbage in the following years is also uncertain. So, without considering these problems, the author cannot confidently conclude a bright future of recycling.

What's more, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the doubled charges of garbage pickup with the furthering increasing amount of material recycled.  Lacking the information of previous price of garbage pickup,

no reliable conclusion can be drawn that people in West egg will choose to recycle the garbage rather than use the landfill. Even if the amount of material recycled will further increase, however, as the common sense, there are still lots of garbage which can not be recycled.

To sum up, the evidence provided does not lead to the conclusion as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that the residents in West egg will do more recycling in the future. More detailed and reliable information should be taken before drawing the conclusion.

突然变天,好冷啊,写到body的第2段时候感觉鼻子里呼出去的气都烫死人了,就草率的糊完了,请大家帮我改改~谢谢~~~

晕的不行了,下去呼呼,下次一定好好交作业!!!

insideUID: 2303230

原帖由 潘猫 于 2007-3-13 23:34 发表

The available space in West Egg's landfill seems should last for considerably longer than predicted in the arguer's point of view, which is based on the doubled number of recycling aluminum and paper, compared with previous years. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a survey, which shows that over ninety percent of the respondents would do more recycling in the future. However, this argument suffers from several critical fallacies cited below.

To being with, the result of the survey is neither relevant nor convincing. Firstly, it only mentions that ninety percent of the respondents claim that they prefer to do more recycling in the future while does not show the number of the respondents and the percentage of the respondents among all the residents. It is reasonable to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general attitude of the citizens in West Egg. Furthermore, the survey just gives a description of the respondents' psychological characteristics, not their realistic behaviors. As we know, although sometimes, behavior may totally reflect people's psychological state, in most of the cases, one's behavior is affected by many other factors（什么factors，能否举例说明？）. In this case, the respondents may still use the landfill under the influence of other unforeseeable factors.

Another problem that weakens the logic of the argument is that the arguer fails to provide evidence of the whole situation of recycling in West Egg.  According to the argument, only two kinds of garbage, aluminum and paper garbage, are recycled largely, whether the other garbage are recycled as aluminum and paper is unknown.  And will（这句两个will） the residents will maintain to recycle the garbage in the following years is also uncertain. So, without considering these problems, the author cannot confidently conclude a bright future of recycling.

What's more, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the doubled charges of garbage pickup with（and） the furthering increasing amount of material recycled.  Lacking the information of previous price of garbage pickup, no reliable conclusion can be drawn that people in West egg will choose to recycle the garbage rather than use the landfill.（先前的收垃圾价格跟后面的结论有什么关系么？） Even if the amount of material recycled will further increase, however, as the common sense, there are still lots of garbage which can not be recycled.（最后一句和这段的主题句没什么关系。这段应该谈收垃圾价钱翻番与可循环材料增加没有因果关系。）

To sum up, the evidence provided does not lead to the conclusion as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that the residents in West egg will do more recycling in the future. More detailed and reliable information should be taken before drawing the conclusion.

祝早日康复!!