argument17 【0710G Superstar】第二次作业

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

字数：596  time：35 min
In this letter, the arguer recommends that the switch of trash collection services from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste by Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken and it is a better choose to continue using EZ. To support his suggestion the arguer compares the frequency of collecting trash a week of the two company and the survey from citizens about their satisfaction with EZ’s performance in last year. However, this argument is problematic in several aspects, which render It unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the arguer simply establishes the assumption that the switch of trash disposal from EZ to ABC is totally on the increased fee of EZ, which is unsubstantiated. There entirely might be other reasons and factors that influence the council to decide the change of garbage collection such as the quality of services in EZ turns bad and the work efficiency has gone down not as good as before. While the ABC have performed well enough in working qualities. Therefore, the arguer’s assumption lacks supportive evidence and complete analysis about the real reason that results in the switch.

Secondly, the arguer notes the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects  only once to prove that EZ has better performance than ABC. However, the arguer made a casual relationship between the frequency of the garbage collection and the quality of performance of a trash disposal company. It is very possible that the effect of the only once collection of trash by ABC is better and faster than the twice ones by EZ. Additionally, granted that it is the fee’s reason that results the switch from EZ to ABC, there is no evidence to show that residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Maybe there is not a great amount of trash that should necessarily to be disposed at once but can wait to be collected only once a week in Walnut Grove, however, the citizen care more to pay additional fees for the collection. Consequently, the comparison of the frequency of trash collection between the two companies lends little support to the recommendation.

Thirdly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks tells us little about EZ’s performance. Maybe these new trucks are not used to collect trash but for other things. Or maybe there are some inefficient problems in EZ’s work which even can’t be solved by the additional trucks. Moreover, the arguer does not mention the performance of ABC, which may have more trucks for trash collection than EZ. Therefore, it is not necessary to accept the conclusion that EZ performs better than ABC.

Finally, the arguer fails to point out the percentage of people who participated in the survey, that is the exact sample capacity, which maybe can’t represent the common thoughts. What’s more, there is no information about the attitude to ABC’s performance from the citizen, which totally is possible to be better than the EZ’s. Additionally, the survey reflects the satisfaction of last year, which is overdue to represent the current situations.

In sum, the arguer’s suggestion that EZ is a better choice for garbage disposal is unconvincing and lack sufficient support and evidence. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer must provide more evidence which proves the fact that EZ is really better at collecting trash than ABC though it demands more fees. To better prove the recommendation, we also need to know the complete comparison between the two companies in every aspects and the citizen’s responds from both of them.

liurenciUID: 2328629

In this letter, the arguer recommends that the switch of trash collection services from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste by Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken and it is a better choose (choice) to continue using EZ. To support his suggestion the arguer compares the frequency of collecting trash a week of the two company and the survey from citizens about their satisfaction with EZ’s performance in last year. However, this argument is problematic in several aspects, which render It unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the arguer simply establishes the assumption that the switch of trash disposal from EZ to ABC is totally on the increased fee of EZ, which is unsubstantiated. There entirely might be other reasons and factors that influence the council to decide the change of garbage collection such as the quality of services in EZ turns bad and the work efficiency has gone down not as good as before.(感觉有点重复了) While the ABC have performed well enough in working qualities. Therefore, the arguer’s assumption lacks supportive evidence and complete analysis about the real reason that results in the switch.

Secondly, the arguer notes the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects  only once to prove that EZ has better performance than ABC. However, the arguer made a casual relationship between the frequency of the garbage collection and the quality of performance of a trash disposal company. It is very possible that the effect of the only once collection of trash by ABC is better and faster than the twice ones by EZ. Additionally, granted that it is the fee’s reason that results the switch from EZ to ABC, there is no evidence to show that residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Maybe there is not a great amount of trash that should necessarily to be disposed at once but can wait to be collected only once a week in Walnut Grove, however, the citizen care more to pay additional fees for the collection. Consequently, the comparison of the frequency of trash collection between the two companies lends little support to the recommendation.

Thirdly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks tells us little about EZ’s performance. Maybe these new trucks are not used to collect trash but for other things. Or maybe there are some inefficient problems in EZ’s work which even can’t be solved by the additional trucks. Moreover, the arguer does not mention the performance of ABC, which may have more trucks for trash collection than EZ. Therefore, it is not necessary to accept the conclusion that EZ performs better than ABC.

Finally, the arguer fails to point out the percentage of people who participated in the survey, that is the exact sample capacity, which maybe can’t represent the common thoughts. What’s more, there is no information about the attitude to ABC’s performance from the citizen, which totally is possible to be better than the EZ’s. Additionally, the survey reflects the satisfaction of last year, which is overdue to represent the current situations.

In sum, the arguer’s suggestion that EZ is a better choice for garbage disposal is unconvincing and lack sufficient support and evidence. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer must provide more evidence which proves the fact that EZ is really better at collecting trash than ABC though it demands more fees. To better prove the recommendation, we also need to know the complete comparison between the two companies in every aspects and the citizen’s responds from both of them.


very good！
可能我的水平太差了，差距啊！

至尊育UID: 2307630

argument17 【0710G Superstar】第二次作业

字数：596  time：35 minIn this letter, the arguer recommends that the switch of trash collection services from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste by Walnut Grove’s town council is mistaken and it is a better choose to continue using EZ. To support his suggestion the arguer compares the frequency of collecting trash a week of the two company (companies) and the survey from citizens about their satisfaction with EZ’s performance in last year. However, this argument is problematic in several aspects, which render It (it) unconvincing as it stands. First of all, the arguer simply establishes the assumption that the switch of trash disposal from EZ to ABC is totally on the increased fee of EZ, which is unsubstantiated. There entirely might be other reasons and factors that influence the council to decide the change of garbage collection such as the quality of services in EZ turns bad and the work efficiency has gone down not as good as before. While the ABC have performed well enough in working qualities. Therefore, the arguer’s assumption lacks supportive evidence and complete analysis about the real reason that results in the switch. Secondly, the arguer notes the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects  only once to prove that EZ has better performance than ABC. However, the arguer made a casual relationship between the frequency of the garbage collection and the quality of performance of a trash disposal company. It is very possible that the effect of the only once collection of trash by ABC is better and faster than the twice ones by EZ. Additionally, granted that it is the fee’s reason that results the switch from EZ to ABC, there is no evidence to show that residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Maybe there is not a great amount of trash that should necessarily to be disposed at once but can wait to be collected only once a week in Walnut Grove, however, the citizen care more to pay additional fees for the collection. Consequently, the comparison of the frequency of trash collection between the two companies lends little support to the recommendation.Thirdly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks tells us little about EZ’s performance. Maybe these new trucks are not used to collect trash but for other things. Or maybe there are some inefficient problems in EZ’s work which even can’t be solved by the additional trucks. Moreover, the arguer does not mention the performance of ABC, which may have more trucks for trash collection than EZ. Therefore, it is not necessary to accept the conclusion that EZ performs better than ABC.Finally, the arguer fails to point out the percentage of people who participated in the survey, that is the exact sample capacity, which maybe can’t represent the common thoughts. What’s more, there is no information about the attitude to ABC’s performance from the citizen, which totally is possible to be better than the EZ’s. Additionally, the survey reflects the satisfaction of last year, which is overdue to represent the current situations. In sum, the arguer’s suggestion that EZ is a better choice for garbage disposal is unconvincing and lack sufficient support and evidence. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer must provide more evidence which proves the fact that EZ is really better at collecting trash than ABC though it demands more fees. To better prove the recommendation, we also need to know the complete comparison between the two companies in every aspects and the citizen’s responds from both of them.

这篇文章写得太牛，我没得挑了。