argument17 [0710G-summer小组]第二次作业by sanliangmm

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

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.”
[outline]:文章对其结论主要有三个论据，采用按文章错误顺序来逐一反驳，           
1.（无理假设）EZ每周收两次垃圾不一定代表其服务更好           
2.（无理假设）  EZ新预定卡车不一定代表其有更好的服务
3.（样本数量+回应者）反驳调查类错误
In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ disposal, rather than switching to the ABC Waste as the town council advocated. To bolster this recommendation, the author cites several statistics showing that EZ disposal is a better choice than ABC Waste. Close scrutiny of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's recommendation.

To begin with, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that EZ collect trash twice as often as ABC is an apt  illustration to the better service for EZ. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the working efficiency of EZ is much lower than ABC which ultimately leads to an additional trash collection in a week, for we all know, one collection per week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Therefore, the author cannot justifiably rely on this claim to bolster his recommendation.

Next, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little in itself about which service would be the better choice for Walnut Grove. Perhaps the trucks In EZ are worn-down and shabby while those in ABC are sufficient new that therefore ABC needn't any more order. Or perhaps, the new trucks in EZ might be used not in trash collection but in other usage such as advertising and so on. For that matter, EZ might not use its entire current fleet for this purpose, whereas ABC would. Besides, the author does not mention when this new order will be accomplished; the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Walnut Grove's decision.

Finally, the author cites the last year's town survey in which "80 percent of respondents" agreed that that were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. However, the author fails to provide any information about the survey population. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the survey results apply generally to the whole town population. Furthermore, the author provides no evidence that survey's respondents are representative of the overall group of people. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that people who are satisfied with the EZ's service were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions about the quality of service.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that EZ disposal is better than ABC Waste, because the evidences cited in the analysis do not lend justifiable support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the recommendation would have to provide specific evidence to demonstrate that Walnut Grove would benefit from an additional trash collection per week, and that the new trucks will be used to prove the service to Walnut Grove. In addition, he would have to provide more detail profile about the survey's respondents and the total number of the population covered in the survey. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

[ 本帖最后由 sanliangmm 于 2007-7-19 14:19 编辑 ]

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

文章对其结论主要有三个论据，采用按文章错误顺序来逐一反驳，           1.（无理假设）EZ每周收两次垃圾不一定代表其服务更好           2.（无理假设）  EZ新预定卡车不一定代表其有更好的服务3.（样本数量+回应者）反驳调查类错误

你的语言驾驭起argument来真是没有问题啊，羡慕~~~
三个错误都找出来了，但是一边倒只介绍Ede情况算不算一个错误呢？还请大家探讨，我文中这样写了，但不知对不对。In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ disposal, rather than switching to the ABC Waste as the town council advocated. To bolster（好词啊，要学着这样有变化） this recommendation, the author cites several statistics showing that EZ disposal is a better choice than ABC Waste. Close scrutiny of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's recommendation.To begin with, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that EZ collect trash twice as often as ABC is an apt illustration to the better service for EZ. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the working efficiency of EZ is much lower than ABC which ultimately leads to an additional trash collection in a week, for we all know, one collection per week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Therefore, the author cannot justifiably rely on this claim to bolster his recommendation.Next, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little in itself about which service would be the better choice for Walnut Grove. Perhaps the trucks In EZ are worn-down and shabby（这一点我写的时候怎么就没有想到）while those in ABC are sufficient new that therefore ABC needn't any more order. Or perhaps, the new trucks in EZ might be used not in trash collection but in other usage such as advertising and so on. For that matter, EZ might not use its entire current fleet for this purpose, whereas ABC would. Besides, the author does not mention when this new order will be accomplished; the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Walnut Grove's decision.Finally, the author cites the last year's town survey in which "80 percent of respondents" agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. However, the author fails to provide any information about the survey population. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the survey results apply generally to the whole town population. Furthermore, the author provides no evidence that survey's respondents are representative of the overall group of people. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that people who are satisfied with the EZ's service were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions about the quality of service.To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that EZ disposal is better than ABC Waste, because the evidences cited in the analysis do not lend justifiable support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the recommendation would have to provide specific evidence to demonstrate that Walnut Grove would benefit from an additional trash collection per week, and that the new trucks will be used to provide the service to Walnut Grove. In addition, he would have to provide more detail profile about the survey's respondents and the total number of the population covered in the survey. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

eenbrUID: 2259468

出来一些小的语法毛病，感觉攻击得很透彻，语言很流畅。不知道大家一样的模式会否影响判分。


In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ disposal, rather than switching to the ABC Waste as the town council advocated. To bolster this recommendation, the author cites several statistics showing that EZ disposal is a better choice than ABC Waste. Close scrutiny of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's recommendation.To begin with, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that EZ collect trash twice as often as ABC is an apt illustration to the better service for EZ. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the working efficiency of EZ is much lower than ABC which ultimately leads to an additional trash collection in a week, for we all know, one collection per week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Therefore, the author cannot justifiably rely on this claim to bolster his recommendation.Next, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little in itself about which service would be the better choice for Walnut Grove. Perhaps the trucks In EZ are worn-down and shabby while those in ABC are sufficient（ly） new that therefore ABC needn't any more order. Or perhaps, the new trucks in EZ might be used not in trash collection but in other usage such as advertising and so on. For that matter, EZ might not use its entire current fleet for this purpose, whereas ABC would. Besides, the author does not mention when this new order will be accomplished; the later the delivery date, the less significant this factor should be in Walnut Grove's decision.Finally, the author cites the last year's town survey in which "80 percent of respondents" agreed that that were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. However, the author fails to provide any information about the survey population. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the survey results apply generally to the whole town population. Furthermore, the author provides no evidence that survey's respondents are representative of the overall group of people. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that people who are satisfied with the EZ's service were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions about the quality of service.To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that EZ disposal is better than ABC Waste, because the evidences cited in the analysis do not lend justifiable support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the recommendation would have to provide specific evidence to demonstrate that Walnut Grove would benefit from an additional trash collection per week, and that the new trucks will be used to prove the service to Walnut Grove. In addition, he would have to provide more detail（ed） profile about the survey's respondents and the total number of the population covered in the survey. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.