Argument11 ~4而后生~小组第四次作业

笑看红尘UID: 2280977

题目：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."
字数：420          用时：0:32:00          日期：2007-3-15
In the argument, the speaker comes to the conclusion that West Egg(WeE)'s landfill will last for a longer time than expected by putting forward several facts, including a survey. However, the argument is so logically flawed that it hardly convince me about the arguer's prediction, and none of facts listed in the argument can serve as a sound evidence to support the conclusion.
First, the fact that local residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper cannot indicate that the serious conditions of garbage disposal that WeE faces have been relieved. The arguer does not provide information about the population growth in WeE and the growth of the amount of garbage. It is very possible the increase of garbage recycling is caused by the two type of growth above. Or we either do not know whether the prediction made by local consultants took into consideration the possible improvement of awareness of environment, if any, of local citizens. In a word, not until the arguer is able to come up with enough supportive information can I agree that the fact indicates the possible elongation of the lasting of local landfill.
Second, the arguer unnecessarily assumes that doubled charges for garbage pickup will lead to increased recycling. It can be true that the pickup fee of garbage has long been very low in WeE, so the doubling of the fee is of no significant effect to local people. Or it may be truth that residents in WeE would rather pay higher fees than do more recycling. So the second fact is also not persuasive.
Last but not least, the survey mentioned in the argument is so seriously flawed that it can manifest barely anything. The design of the survey is problematic, whose respondents are probably neither representative nor forthright. Local citizens may not respond to the survey if they would not like to do recycling, or those who are not willing to recycle responds to the survey that they will do this, all because they may be ashamed of their choice. But ashamedness won't change their behavior.
In sum, the arguer has not been able to list any useful evidence to demonstrate the 'strong commitment to recycling'  of local people in WeE. Thus, the conclusion that local landfill can last is not convincible at all. However, the argument may be improved if the arguer is able to use more persuasive evidence to support the three facts, or he or she can find out some other proof to illustrate the conclusion.

napUID: 196976

题目：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 withinfive years. During the past two years, however, town residents havebeen recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previousyears. Next month the amount of material recycled should furtherincrease, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore,over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said thatthey would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents'strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfillshould last for considerably longer than predicted."
字数：420          用时：0:32:00          日期：2007-3-15
In the argument, the speaker comes to the conclusion that WestEgg(WeE)'s landfill will last for a longer time than expected byputting forward several facts, including a survey. However, theargument is so logically flawed that it hardly convince me about thearguer's prediction, and none of facts listed in the argument can serveas a sound evidence to support the conclusion.
(开头现在我也不知道怎么写才好，意见保留)

First, the fact that local residents have been recycling twice as muchaluminum and paper cannot indicate that the serious conditions ofgarbage disposal that WeE faces have been relieved. The arguer does notprovide information about the population growth in WeE and the growthof the amount of garbage. It is very possible the increase of garbagerecycling is caused by the two type of growth above(不知道这里描述过去是不是得用过去时). Or we either donot know whether the prediction made by local consultants took intoconsideration the possible improvement of awareness of environment, ifany, of local citizens. In a word, not until the arguer is able to comeup with enough supportive information can(can't?) I agree that the factindicates the possible elongation of the lasting of local landfill.
(感觉论证不清楚，好象两者的可能关系没写明白)

Second, the arguer unnecessarily assumes that doubled charges forgarbage pickup will lead to increased recycling. It can be true thatthe pickup fee of garbage has long been very low in WeE, so thedoubling of the fee is of no significant effect to local people. Or itmay be truth that residents in WeE would rather pay higher fees than domore recycling. So the second fact is also not persuasive.
Last but not least, the survey mentioned in the argument is soseriously flawed that it can manifest barely anything. The design ofthe survey is problematic(这应该是另一个论证，建议另写一段), whose respondents are probably neitherrepresentative nor forthright. Local citizens may not respond to thesurvey if they would not like to do recycling, or those who are notwilling to recycle responds to the survey that they will do this, allbecause they may be ashamed of their choice. But ashamedness won'tchange their behavior.
(这段论述比较清晰)

In sum, the arguer has not been able to list any useful evidence todemonstrate the 'strong commitment to recycling'  of local people inWeE. Thus, the conclusion that local landfill can last is notconvincible at all. However, the argument may be improved if the argueris able to use more persuasive evidence to support the three facts(3点，所以论证我感觉应该分3段), or(看第一眼时感觉是或者，是不是应该考虑换一种说法)he or she can find out some other proof to illustrate the conclusion.

Issue17: https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=629821
Argument117: https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=630300

[ 本帖最后由 nap 于 2007-3-18 20:28 编辑 ]