ARGUMENT17 [OB小组]第2次作业_stonescj

stonescjUID: 2359180

17 倒垃圾问题
1. survey is not convincing
2.收集垃圾次数不能代表彻底性，可能A采用先进技术,管理技术卡车的增加不一定需要，不一定是用于收垃圾
3. 收费的合理性
The arguer asserts that the residents of the Walnut Grove's should still use EZ Disposal Company as a result of setting out a series of evidence by compared with ABC Waste Company. As it stands, the editorial’s attestation is not concrete to convinced, on the contrary, it suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. There is not any testimony to prove EZ company provides exceptional service. In addition, the sample ages, genders, backgrounds are also omitted in this research report, which could not hold back people to discredit the reliability of the questionnaire. Maybe the people who are investigated are not the inhabitants of the town or have resided in just for a short time that are not familiar with the circumstance. Maybe the samples does not contact with disposal trifles, so they has not taste the service quality. It is also possible that the redemptory questionnaire is only portion of the entire questionnaire, which can't support the reliability of the survey. Without make clear those possible reasons, the inquiry can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

Furthermore, even if we concede that the there is in fact creditable about the inquiry, this does not means that a series of actions of the EZ Disposal is reasonable. Firstly, it is query about the necessity that EZ collects trash twice a week. Though ABC collects garbage once a week, it can introduce advanced technology and hypervisor, which could make the efficiency much higher than that of EZ. Secondly, there is not inevitable causality between the service quality of EZ company and the number of the trucks. Maybe the accessorial trucks will used to replace the ropey ones. Maybe the additional trucks will used to exploit new disposal market. Failing to point out this possibility, the arguer can not make such a prediction so early.

Finally, we should wake up to a more realistic and concerned matter. Why EZ company retain the monthly fee for ten years but raise abruptly now? Compared with ABC, its monthly fare is still $2000.This markup action of EZ doesn't ensure that the service of the EZ could increase. It is entirely possible that ABC has reduced the recycle produce cost and improved the benefit and assured the stabilization of monthly fee.

To sum up, in order to prove the predominance of the EZ and continue using EZ, it is necessary to provide extensive and convincing proof. The arguer fails to do that.

[ 本帖最后由 stonescj 于 2007-7-14 21:59 编辑 ]

OB叔UID: 188695

The arguer asserts that the residents of the Walnut Grove's should still use EZ Disposal Company as a result of setting out a series of evidence by compared with ABC Waste Company. As it stands, the editorial’s attestation is not concrete to convinced, on the contrary, it suffers from several critical flaws as follows. 开头写的不错

To begin with, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. There is not any testimony to prove EZ company provides exceptional service. In addition, the sample ages, genders, backgrounds are also omitted in this research report, which could not hold back people to discredit the reliability of the questionnaire. 这句话写的好Maybe the people who are investigated are not the inhabitants of the town or have resided in just for a short time that are not familiar with the circumstance. Maybe the samples does not contact with disposal trifles, so they has not taste the service quality. It is also possible that the redemptory questionnaire is only portion of the entire questionnaire, which can't support the reliability of the survey. Without make clear those possible reasons, the inquiry can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

Furthermore, even if we concede that the there is in fact creditable about the inquiry, this does not means that a series of actions of the EZ Disposal is reasonable. Firstly, it is query about the necessity that EZ collects trash twice a week. Though ABC collects garbage once a week, it can introduce advanced technology and hypervisor, which could make the efficiency much higher than that of EZ. Secondly, there is not inevitable causality between the service quality of EZ company and the number of the trucks. Maybe the accessorial trucks will used to replace the ropey ones. Maybe the additional trucks will used to exploit new disposal market. Failing to point out this possibility, the arguer can not make such a prediction so early.

Finally, we should wake up to a more realistic and concerned matter. Why EZ company retain the monthly fee for ten years but raise abruptly now? Compared with ABC, its monthly fare is still $2000.This markup action of EZ doesn't ensure that the service of the EZ could increase. It is entirely possible that ABC has reduced the recycle produce cost and improved the benefit and assured the stabilization of monthly fee.

To sum up, in order to prove the predominance of the EZ and continue using EZ, it is necessary to provide extensive and convincing proof. The arguer fails to do that.

论述的太好了，我只有学习的份了

你写这片argument用了多少时间啊，算上思考的时间

stonescjUID: 2359180

赫赫，谢谢指点啦！
我现在就是写作速度很慢，这篇用了快2 个小时，严重超时了吧？:)

OB叔UID: 188695

我就说啊，用了2个小时啊。

我现在都是严格控制自己的时间的issue最多1个小时，argu最多45分钟啊

pesticideUID: 2359145

The arguer asserts that the residents of the Walnut Grove's should still use EZ Disposal Company as a result of setting out a series of evidence by compared with ABC Waste Company. As it stands, the editorial’s attestation is not concrete to convinced(有点便扭), on the contrary, it suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. There is not any testimony to prove EZ company provides exceptional service. In addition, the sample ages, genders, backgrounds are also omitted in this research report, which could not hold back people to discredit the reliability of the questionnaire. Maybe the people who are investigated are not the inhabitants of the town or have resided in just for a short time that are not familiar with the circumstance. Maybe the samples does not contact with disposal trifles, so they has not taste the service quality. It is also possible that the redemptory questionnaire is only portion of the entire questionnaire, which can't support the reliability of the survey. Without make clear those possible reasons, the inquiry can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

Furthermore, even if we concede that the there is in fact creditable about the inquiry, this does not means that a series of actions of the EZ Disposal is reasonable. Firstly, it is query about the necessity that EZ collects trash twice a week. Though ABC collects garbage once a week, it can introduce advanced technology and hypervisor, which could make the efficiency much higher than that of EZ. Secondly, there is not inevitable causality between the service quality of EZ company and the number of the trucks. Maybe the accessorial trucks will used to replace the ropey ones. Maybe the additional trucks will used to exploit new disposal market. Failing to point out this possibility, the arguer can not make such a prediction so early.

Finally, we should wake up to a more realistic and concerned matter. Why EZ company retain the monthly fee for ten years but raise abruptly now? Compared with ABC, its monthly fare is still $2000.This markup action of EZ doesn't ensure that the service of the EZ could increase. It is entirely possible that ABC has reduced the recycle produce cost and improved the benefit and assured the stabilization of monthly fee.

To sum up, in order to prove the predominance of the EZ and continue using EZ, it is necessary to provide extensive and convincing proof. The arguer fails to do that.

分析得挺好，词藻华丽。开头和结尾再好一点就更好了。

chentian_nkUID: 2340104

The arguer asserts that the residents of the Walnut Grove's should still use EZ Disposal Company as a result of setting out a series of evidence by compared with ABC Waste Company. As it stands, the editorial’s attestation is not concrete to convinced, on the contrary, it suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. There is not any testimony to prove EZ company provides exceptional service. In addition, the sample ages, genders, backgrounds are also omitted in this research report, which could not hold back people to discredit the reliability of the questionnaire.万用句型 Maybe the people who are investigated are not the inhabitants of the town or have resided in just for a short time that are not familiar with the circumstance. Maybe the samples does not contact with disposal trifles, so they has not taste the service quality. It is also possible that the redemptory questionnaire is only portion of the entire questionnaire, which can't support the reliability of the survey. Without make clear those possible reasons, the inquiry can not serve as a cogent evidence for the argument.

Furthermore, even if we concede that the there is in fact creditable about the inquiry, this does not means that a series of actions of the EZ Disposal is reasonable. Firstly, it is query about the necessity that EZ collects trash twice a week. Though ABC collects garbage once a week, it can introduce advanced technology and hypervisor, which could make the efficiency much higher than that of EZ. Secondly, there is not inevitable causality between the service quality of EZ company and the number of the trucks. Maybe the accessorial trucks will used to replace the ropey ones. Maybe the additional trucks will used to exploit new disposal market. Failing to point out this possibility, the arguer can not make such a prediction so early.

Finally, we should wake up to a more realistic and concerned matter. Why EZ company retain the monthly fee for ten years but raise abruptly now? Compared with ABC, its monthly fare is still $2000.This markup action of EZ doesn't ensure that the service of the EZ could increase. It is entirely possible that ABC has reduced the recycle produce cost and improved the benefit and assured the stabilization of monthly fee.

To sum up, in order to prove the predominance of the EZ and continue using EZ, it is necessary to provide extensive and convincing proof. The arguer fails to do that.

hoho和我反驳的习惯不太一样。我习惯一种很ms权威的语气，类似：他假设什么，没有证据支持，可能可能。。。这种模式
石头喜欢一种平易的语气，这个有问题，那个多考虑，值得怀疑。各有各的好处。hoho。都蛮顺畅的！读起来很舒服hoho