argument17 『五一互助小组』第4次作业

为了忘记UID: 2317994

From the argument above we can know that both EZ Disposal and ABC Waste both have their own advantages. But as far as I concerned, Walnut Grove’s council made no mistakes in choosing ABC Waste instead of EZ Disposal. At least, the author didn’t give us enough evidence to convincing us that EZ is more suitable for Walnut Grove’s town that ABC.

In the first place, there is no evidence to show that the inhabitant in Walnut Grove’s town will be still satisfied with EZ’s performance though it recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500. Though the survey which is provided to u showed that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance, the survey s was made last year, before the price raising. Maybe some people will change their chose to ABC because of its lower price. So if the author want to made argument more evidencing, a survey made after the price raising will be provided.

In the second place, there is no contact of the quality of serves between EZ and ABC. Though ABC only collects trash once a week, one time less than EZ, it can not be the evidence to say that the ABC’s serves is worse than EZ’s. Maybe collecting trash once a week is enough for inhabitant in Walnut Grove’s town, and twice a week is a waste. It is the same as raising the number of trucks. No evidence provided to say that 20 trucks are not enough and more trucks are needed. Specially, for the raising of monthly fee of EZ, less but enough service is more suitable than more but unnecessary service.

Moreover, as the argument said, EZ has serviced the town for 10 years. So the respondents know little about ABC. Even though ABC serviced the town 10 years ago, and its service is really bad in that time, there must be a great change in 10 years. May be the service of ABC is the same as the service of EZ now, even much better. Why not giving ABC a chance? May be it will return us a surprise.

To sum up, it is unwise to critic the change that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. It is hard to make us convinced with no evidence to show that the service of EZ is better than ABC. And whether the inhabitant will receive the raising of price is unknown. So as to make the argument more convincing, more surveys should be made to show that the inhabitant will satisfy with EZ’s performance no matter its monthly fee raising or not. Admittedly, maybe the survey should be made some time later, after giving ABC chance to perform itself. And then, people will give us an all-aspects answer which is better, EZ or ABC, including price and quality of service.


[ 本帖最后由 为了忘记 于 2007-6-11 00:12 编辑 ]

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

2个问题,第一结尾太长而主体部分都不够充分,第2对于钱的那个错误我觉得批了反而是不好，我专门发了个帖子你可以去看一下

crossingrainbowUID: 145603

建议你把原题目帖出来，才方便判断你批判的是不是重点。

1段

From the argument above we can know that “both” EZ Disposal and ABC Waste “both” have their own advantages一个句子里面2个BOTH，不知道你写出来以后是否自己读过。
如果开篇第一句就是这个水平就不要想拿高分了。


2段
Though the survey which is provided to “u ”
考试绝对不能这么写！！
一切缩写都不建议你用，更何况是这种。