argument17 【0710G Victors互助小组】第二次作业

puzilongUID: 2308557

Argument   17
The fallacies:  1, Collection of trash twice or once is no relevance with fee and Walnut Grove’s choice.
             2, The num of trucks have no influence about EZ or ABC ‘s service.
             3, The survey is impotent.
         The argument presented undoubtedly is useful, but also is limited. It indicate that due to EZ raising fee of collecting trash from $2000 to $2500 per month,Walnut Grove’s town council intended to contract with new trash company ABC that insist the monthly fee $2000 instead of EZ.But the arguer do not think this is a good idea, and enumerate several reasons and some figures to support himself.However those can not be insufficient to prove town council got a mistake.
         First of all, collection of trash twice or once have any relevent with who is better between EZ and ABC. Image that, town’s garbage is disposed by two times or one time per week have any influence to dwellers? Apparently no, even have, it must be trivial.And let us think about it deeply,one job have could been done by one time,whereas in fact by two times is definitely more wasteful. Regardless of saving source, it must need more money.This obviously disobey thinking of economizing expenditure.
         At the same time, the arguer talked about that EZ would have more trucks than ABC in spit of this number is the same.The information let arguer firmly believe that Walnut Grove should choose EZ to regulate trash. Nevertheless it is no question that is dubious. If 20 trucks indeed can not work well, of course EZ is more competent,but what if the work need not so many trucks at all? Then the arguer’s opinion should be discussed.
         Finally, the arguer give his/her the potent evidence to verify his/her notion-----a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year were contented with EZ’s service. Nonetheless what can be explained? Who knows how many people were interviewed by the survey?They can represent all people live in Walnut Grove?And who can assures the validity of survey? Certainly I must admit that the survey to some degree can prove EZ supplied good service last year. But that can not persuade us to think it done in the past or do in the future well,otherwise can not verify that ABC had worse job than EZ last year.
         So, from above discussion,the arguer’s view that EZ is a better option is not enough.Before sum the conclusion, the amount and kinds of investigations and well-grounded proofs should be showed to be for it. For the problem of Walnut Grove, the dicision should be made after through more reasonable argumentation and most of dwellers’ agreement.      
  

[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-5-9 20:16 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

标题格式错误。

此外段间空格。你这样的版面大家看起很辛苦。标点符号后面空格。

puzilongUID: 2308557

以后注意的.....抱歉了................:)

expire7UID: 2160574

多找几个人互改，没人看的习作帖子毫无意义的。
主动联系他们吧。

#十指飞舞UID: 2330769

每次作业完毕后，最好通过队里的qq群或者群名片的手机号给你的partner留言，通知他你的作文已经完成了，他好及时修改你的作业。
大部分队员是周五晚把作业交齐然后周末进行修改的
你是本周第一个完成的，非常快，赞一个 :)

fengyinyangUID: 2321139

The argument presented undoubtedly is useful, but also is limited 这句话可以放后面. It indicates that due to EZ raising fee of collecting trash from $2000 to $2500 per month, Walnut Grove’s town council intended to contract with new trash company ABC that insist the monthly fee $2000 instead of EZ. But the arguer does not think this is a good idea, and enumerates several reasons and some figures to support himself. However those can not be insufficient to prove town council got a mistake.
         First of all, collection of trash twice or once have any relevant with who is better between EZ and ABC这句话什么意思，改成疑问句好些吧. Image that, town’s garbage is disposed by two times or one time once or twice per week have any influence to 改成 on dwellers? Apparently no？？？, even have, it must be trivial. And let us think about it deeply, one job have could 去could been done by one time once, whereas in fact by two times twice is definitely more wasteful. Regardless of saving source, it must need more money. This obviously disobeys thinking of economizing expenditure. 在第一句话就指出他的错误
         At the same time, the arguer talked about that EZ would have more trucks than ABC in spit of this number is the same +now. The information let arguer firmly believe that Walnut Grove should choose EZ to regulate trash. Nevertheless it there is no question that it is dubious. If 20 trucks indeed can not work well, of course EZ is more competent, but what if the work needs not so many trucks at all? Then the arguer’s opinion should be discussed这句话怎么看者有点象chinglish来着.
         Finally, the arguer give his/her his is ok the potent evidence to verify his/her notion-----a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year were contented with EZ’s service. Nonetheless what can be explained?这句话可以去了 Who knows how many people were interviewed by the survey? They can represent all people live in Walnut Grove?用疑问句语序吧 And who can assures the validity of survey? Certainly I must admit that the survey to some degree can prove EZ supplied good service last year. But that can not persuade us to think it done in the past or do in the future well, otherwise can not verify that ABC had worse job than EZ last year.
         So Therefore, from above discussion the discussion above, the arguer’s view that EZ is a better option is not enough. Before sum drawing the conclusion, the amount and kinds of investigations and well-grounded proofs should be showed to be 去掉to be for it. For the problem of Walnut Grove, the decision should be made after through 去掉through more reasonable argumentation and most of dwellers’ agreement.
开同段可以写出你认为有问题的观点，后面的论证过程可以在每段开头提出他的错误所在，最后一段指出要怎样弥补，多看范文，加油