Argument11 （~4而后生~）求拍！

hezhifei2008UID: 2233976

这几天学校的事太忙乱，才写了第一篇argument,大家见笑了，谢谢！

Argument11

In this argument the arguer intends to prove that West Egg (WE)'s landfill should be used for longer than predicted. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provide the evidence that aluminum and paper have been recycling twice than before by residents, the fee to deal with garbage will increase next month and that ninety percent of the respondents of a survey show they will do more recycling in the future. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

To begin with, the recycling of aluminum and paper is only a part of the garbage of WE's residents can recycle. Perhaps other kinds of recyclable garbage, such as plastic and glass increased in the past two years so maybe the total amount of recyclable garbage has not decreased. Another problem with the argument is that the increase of recycle garbage does not mean to the decrease of total amount of garbage for the arguer fails to consider the amount of can’t recyclable garbage, so we can not infer that the amount of garbage which has filled into the landfill has decreased in the past two years.

Moreover the arguer overlook a strong possibility that maybe the consultants are not the major factor influencing the garbage amount needed filled in the landfill, and maybe the industrial garbage take an important role for that. So the arguer should not only consider garbage came from residents for in most situation the industrial garbage is much more than living garbage.

Yet, another problem with the argument is the increase in the payment of material recycled should lead to less garbage to fill into the landfill. Some garbage can not be recycle and maybe this area has no other way to treat these garbage, so citizens and factories have to send their garbage to the landfill no matter how much it takes. And maybe even twice price can also be accepted by people, so this method has little effect to limit the amount of garbage filled into the landfill.

Finally, there is no evidence can prove the responder of the survey can represent all the people who use this landfill. It is entirely possible that people who inclined to the recycle were more willing to respond to the survey than other people. So evidence is not enough to prove the survey is reliable, and the speaker can not conclude that the landfill will be filled full more slowly than predicted.

In sum, the speaker's conclusion is not credible, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to have to prove recycle can lead to decrees of total amount of garbage; the increased charge can make less garbage filled in the landfill, and the representative of the survey.

insideUID: 2303230

In this argument the arguer intends to prove that West Egg (WE)'s landfill should be used for longer than predicted. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provideS the evidence that aluminum and paper have been recycling twice than before by residents, the fee to deal with garbage will increase next month and that ninety percent of the respondents of a survey show they will do more recycling in the future. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

To begin with, the recycling of aluminum and paper is only a part of the garbage of WE's residents can recycle(which can be recycled). Perhaps other kinds of recyclable garbage, such as plastic and glass increased in the past two years so maybe the total amount of recyclable garbage has not decreased(recycle的越多，垃圾填埋场使用时间越长，你好像证反了). Another problem with the argument is that the increase of recycle garbage does not mean to the decrease of total amount of garbage for the arguer fails to consider the amount of can’t recyclable（unrecyclable） garbage, so we can not infer that the amount of garbage which has filled into the landfill has decreased in the past two years.

Moreover the arguer overlookS(一般现在时，注意时态) a strong possibility that maybe the consultants（这个词这里不知道啥意思） are not the major factor influencing the garbage amount needed filled in the landfill, and maybe the industrial garbage take an important role for that. So the arguer should not only consider garbage came from residents for（since） in most situation the industrial garbage is much more than living garbage.

Yet（这个词表示“然而”，不是而且，用furthermore）, another problem with the argument is the increase in the payment of material recycled should lead to less garbage to fill into the landfill. Some garbage can not be recycleD and maybe this area has no other way to treat these garbage, so citizens and factories have to send their garbage to the landfill no matter how much it takes. And maybe even twice price can also be accepted by people, so this method has little effect to limit the amount of garbage filled into the landfill.

Finally, there is no evidence can prove the responder of the survey can represent all the people who use this landfill. It is entirely possible that people who inclined to the recycle were more willing to respond to the survey than other people.（这句话感觉所有人都会说的，有可能被判为雷同。。。） So evidence is not enough to prove the survey is reliable, and the speaker can not conclude that the landfill will be filled full more slowly than predicted.

In sum, the speaker's conclusion is not credible, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to have to prove recycle can lead to decrees of total amount of garbage; the increased charge can make less garbage filled in the landfill, and the representative of the survey.

问题找的不错。语言上需要好好磨练哈！
要保A争I哦！