Argument17 【0710G Victors互助小组】第2次作文

唐诗三百首UID: 2273424

Argument17 【0710G Victors互助小组】第2次作文

Argument17.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."

提纲

1.The means we judge services should not be the quantity but the quality, as well as the practical conditions.
2.The objective that the EZ Disposal ordered new trucks is not clear.
3.This 80 percent satisfaction is partial and unconvincing.

正文

It seems that the arguer’s view on that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste is sound and convincing at first glance. While in my opinion, there are several flaws in it if we take further considerations.

That EZ collects trash twice a week which doubles the ABC’s services while only raises the fee by 25 percent seems to be a overwhelming advantage. Nevertheless, the means we judge services should not be the quantity but the quality, as well as the practical conditions. If one collections of trash is acceptable, why should people pay more money for the redundant services? Or if the EZ’s double services equals to the ABC’s single service, it is unfair for people to pay for less work efficiency.

Another reason why the arguer tries to persuade people in Walnut Grove to continue using EZ Disposal is that EZ has ordered additional tucks, which I think is unconvincing for the final decision. First, the clients are concerned more about the quality of the services rather than the faculties a company has. Secondly, the objective that the EZ Disposal ordered new trucks is not clear. Whether the additional trucks are the replacements of the old ones or whether they would be used in the coming services is still a doubt which is worthless to be an evidence.

Still another, the arguer presents that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year which seems to be a persuasive reason. But this 80 percent satisfaction is partial and unconvincing. The respondents that mentioned above are all clients of the EZ Disposal, who received only services from EZ, and could be unsatisfied if they have comparison between the two companies. Also, the satisfaction could only respect the last year’s services they got from the EZ, which makes no sense on the coming year’s services with higher fee.

In sum, the arguer’s words are not convincing enough. It could be better if the arguer presents more details and more comparison between the two companies.

[ 本帖最后由 唐诗三百首 于 2007-5-11 23:31 编辑 ]

#十指飞舞UID: 2330769

  It seems that the arguer’s view on that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste is sound and convincing at first glance. While in my opinion, there are several flaws in it if we take further considerations.[开头很简洁]
  That EZ collects trash twice a week which doubles the ABC’s services while only raises the fee by 25 percent seems to be a overwhelming advantage. Nevertheless, the means we judge services should not be the quantity but the quality, as well as the practical conditions. If one collections of trash is acceptable[collecting trash once a week is enough], why should people pay more money for the redundant services? Or if the EZ’s double services equals to the ABC’s single service, it is unfair for people to pay for less work efficiency.
  Another reason why the arguer tries to persuade people in Walnut Grove to continue using EZ Disposal is that EZ has ordered additional tucks, which I think [驳论文一般是比较严肃的，和立论文不太一样，主要是查找体中的逻辑错误，不用表达自己的主观想法，可以少用一些I think, in my opinion等，这里可以去掉，一个小建议]is unconvincing for the final decision. First, [common sense tell me that ]the clients [应该是residents]are concerned [concern]more about the quality of the services rather than the faculties a company has.[这点最好能再展开说一下] Secondly, the objective that the EZ Disposal ordered new trucks is not clear. Whether the additional trucks are the replacements of the old ones or whether they would be used in the coming services is still a doubt which is worthless to be an evidence.
  Still another, the arguer presents that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year which seems to be a persuasive reason. But this 80 percent satisfaction is partial and unconvincing. The respondents that mentioned above are all clients of the EZ Disposal, who received only services from EZ, and could be unsatisfied if they have comparison between the two companies. Also, the satisfaction could only respect the last year’s services they got from the EZ, which makes no sense on the coming year’s services with higher fee[这里好像有点不通哦。也可以这样推，这是去年的满意度调查结果，今年能不能达到同样的满意度还不定；而且调查结果即使是比较满意，但也无法认为人们在提高了25%的价钱后使用这同样的服务也会满意。]  In sum, the arguer’s words are not convincing enough. It could be better if the arguer presents more details and more comparison between the two companies.[结尾收笔比较匆忙，最好能写上需要的是那些具体的信息]

总的来说，这篇argument指出了原题的几个大的逻辑错误，分析大部分是比较到位的，就是有些部分还给人以犹未尽的感觉，要是能展开再论述一下就更好了。
加油！


[ 本帖最后由 #十指飞舞 于 2007-5-13 15:31 编辑 ]