Aguement17 [Victors小组]第1次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

Argument17

WORDS: 325          TIME: 09:45         DATE: 2007-4-13
提纲:1The sample of the survey is not surfficiently large.
           2The result of the survey does not comprehend the residents' attitude to ABC.
           3The expetional service of EZ is too vague.
           4who conducted the survey.
           5the potentional substitution

In this letter, author recommends continuing using EZ Disposal. In order to support his recommendation, he cites the fallowing facts:(1)80percent of residents to the last year’s town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ’s performance.(2)EZ Disposal provides exceptional service.

First of all, author fails to inform us how many persons echoed the survey. If the sample is not large enough, the result is highly suspect. For example, if there are 10000 residents in Grove town, but only 100 persons responded the survey the result of the survey make no sense as the evidence of the conclusion at all. Lacking of information about the scale of the sample         is insufficient to justify the conclusion.

Secondly, this survey only provide the residents’ view about EZ Disposal, not including their attitude about ABC Waste. So we don’t know whether the resident are as satisfied with ABC’s performance as with EZ’s. Maybe the residents who prefer EZ is even more. With out these information, it’s flippant to draw any conclusion.

.Thirdly this piece of information that EZ Disposal provides exceptional service is too vague, because it does not include the content and the value of the service. The key point is just whether the exceptional service equals $500 a month. Be facing with such a vague fact It is fallacious to draw any conclusion.

Fourthly,  the arguer fail to rveal who conduced the survey, which is a key point to the survey . Maybe it is Ez disposal itself conductit. In this case the rathdom sample is hard to be ensured.EZ had incentive to select the residents who was satisfied with It.Un less the arguer exclude the posibility,the result of survey  can't be plausible.

Even if EZ' service is really better than ABC, it is still fallacious to continue the contract with it. It is possible that there are other firms whose service is sperior but whose charge is more economical.In this case choosing EZ or ABC is both not rational.To render me  accept his recomandation , the arguer have to exclude this pllibility..

In sum, these logical flaws are so obvious that the evidence can’t supply any powerful support to the general conclusion. In order to consolidate it the arguer have to provide fallowing information: (1) the scale of the sample(2) residents' attitude to ABC' service(3)  the content and value of EZ's exceptional service(4) the people or ognization that conduced the survey(5) the potential substitution of these two firms.
  大家不要手下留情,小生心理素质很好.




[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-4-14 12:18 编辑 ]

wangxiaoxuanUID: 2259221

你的ARGUMENT没什么问题,除了一点拼写错误还真找不到什么了~~~应该有好好练过了~~赞一个先

In this letter, author recommends continuing using EZ Disposal. In order to support his recommendation, he cites the following facts 1)80percent of residents to the last year’s town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ’s performance.(2)EZ Disposal provides exceptional service.

First of all, author fails to inform us how many persons echoed the survey. If the sample is not large enough, the result is highly suspected. For example, if there are 10000 residents in Grove town, but only 100 persons responded the survey the result of the survey make no sense as the evidence of the conclusion at all. Lacking of information about the scale of the sample         is insufficient to justify the conclusion.

Secondly, this survey only provide the residents’ view about EZ Disposal, not including their attitude about ABC Waste. So we don’t know whether the resident are as satisfied with ABC’s performance as with EZ’s. Maybe the residents who prefer EZ is even more. With out these information, it’s flippant to draw any conclusion.

.Thirdly this piece of information that EZ Disposal provides exceptional service is too vague, because it does not include the content and the value of the service. The key point is just whether the exceptional service equals $500 a month. Be facing with such a vague fact It is fallacious to draw any conclusion.

Fourthly,  the arguer fail to reveal who conduced the survey, which is a key point to the survey . Maybe it is Ez disposal itself conductit. In this case the rathdom sample is hard to be ensured.EZ had incentive to select the residents who was satisfied with It.Un less the arguer exclude the posibility,the result of survey  can't be plausible.Even if EZ' service is really better than ABC, it is still fallacious to continue the contract with it. It is possible that there are other firms whose service is sperior but whose charge is more economical.In this case choosing EZ or ABC is both not rational.To render me  accept his recomandation , the arguer have to exclude this pllibility..

In sum, these logical flaws are so obvious that the evidence can’t supply any powerful support to the general conclusion. In order to consolidate it the arguer have to provide fallowing information: (1) the scale of the sample(2) residents' attitude to ABC' service(3)  the content and value of EZ's exceptional service(4) the people or ognization that conduced the survey(5) the potential substitution of these two firms.  大家不要手下留情,小生心理素质很好.




[ 本帖最后由 wangxiaoxuan 于 2007-4-14 22:33 编辑 ]

tianjinxtlUID: 2173942

楼上该过了我就泛泛说说看法。

第五点真酷，是经过严格训练的表现。

另外1、2、4点似乎应该放到一起说。第三点过于单薄，说说为什么是such a vague fact 才是重点，不能上来二话不说就把人一下拍死了。

15348664UID: 2269142

ls是我

乳虎UID: 2251211

In this letter, author recommends continuing using EZ Disposal. In order to support his recommendation, he cites the fallowing facts 1)80percent of residents to the last year’s town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ’s performance.(2)EZ Disposal provides exceptional service.

First of all, author fails to inform us how many persons echoed the survey. If the sample is not large enough, the result is highly suspect. For example, if there are 10000 residents in Grove town, but only 100 persons responded the survey the result of the survey make no sense as the evidence of the conclusion at all. Lacking of information about the scale of the sample the result of the survey  is insufficient to justify the conclusion.

Secondly, this survey only provide the residents’ view about EZ Disposal, not including their attitude about ABC Waste. So we don’t know whether the resident are as satisfied with ABC’s performance as with EZ’s. Maybe the residents who prefer EZ is even more. With out these information, it’s flippant to draw any conclusion.

Thirdly,  the arguer fail to rveal who conduced the survey, which is a key point to the survey . Maybe it is Ez disposal itself conductit. In this case the rathdom sample is hard to be ensured.EZ had incentive to select the residents who was satisfied with It.Un less the arguer exclude the posibility,the result of survey  can't be plausible.


Forthly, this piece of information that EZ Disposal provides exceptional service is too vague, because it does not include the content and the value of the service. It is most likely that that exceptional service is just odds and ends which do not marked good to the residents. In this case  the exceptional service does not equal $500 a month. Be facing with such a vague fact It is fallacious to draw any conclusion.Even if EZ' service is really better than ABC, it is still fallacious to continue the contract with it. It is possible that there are other firms whose service is sperior but whose charge is more economical.In this case choosing EZ or ABC is both not rational.To render me  accept his recomandation , the arguer have to exclude this pllibility..

In sum, these logical flaws are so obvious that the evidence can’t supply any powerful support to the general conclusion. In order to consolidate it the arguer have to provide fallowing information: (1) the scale of the sample(2) residents' attitude to ABC' service(3)  the content and value of EZ's exceptional service(4) the people or ognization that conduced the survey(5) the potential substitution of these two firms.

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-4-25 16:50 编辑 ]