Argument17 0710G summer小组个人作业2

冰河UID: 2302448

OPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
攻击三点：1数据采集可能有误；2两次未必就比一次好；3车辆多未必服务好
"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."
WORDS: 421          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-19

In this letter the arguer recommends Walnut Grove's town council to continue using EZ for trash collection. The arguer admits that EZ's monthly free is higher than its opponent ABC. But the arguer defends its recommendation by citing a town survey in which most respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year. The arguer also points out that EZ collects trash twice a week whereas ABC collects only once, besides EZ has ordered more trucks. However, close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little support for the recommendation.
    First, the letter provides no evidence that the results of the surveys are statistically reliable. For example, suppose most residents who were dissatisfied with EZ's performance did not respond to the survey, then the results of the survey would distort the residents’ opinion as a group. Besides, the letter provides no information about the percentage of the town's residents respondent to the survey. The lower percentages, the less reliable the results of the surveys.
    Secondly, the arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between how many times in a week trash were collected and evaluating the service of a certain company. Though ABC collects trash only once a week, no evidence proves twice is better. As long as the residents feel one time is enough for trash collecting, as long as ABC can collect all trash cleanly and quickly, then ABC's service is also Ok. Let alone the ABC's fee is still $2,000 a month and $500 cheaper than EZ's monthly fee.
    Thirdly, an order of additional trucks for EZ Disposal is mentioned by the author in order to show its advantage over ABC Waster. I think this actually would have misled the readers of that newspaper who are also going to order this kind of service. It is because the author cannot guarantee that ABC Waste will definitely have fewer trucks than EZ Disposal in the future. Indeed when ABC Waste see their disadvantage they may plan to purchase more trash trucks to compete with EZ Disposal. Another important thing is that we cannot simply judge the quality of the trash service merely by comparing the trucks of each company. Rather, we should look at the attitude of the people in service, whether they are able to collect trash on time and whether they make sure the area is still clean as before after they have collected the trash. These parts should be taken into further consideration, but not the number of trucks they possess.
    In sum, the arguer is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must show the detailed information about the survey to determine whether the respondents as groups were representative of their respective population. To bolster its recommendation the arguer must provide the evidence that the town's residents care more about the frequency the company collects trash, rather than the fee they spend. To better assess the argument the arguer also establish the relationship between the quality of the trash service and the trucks of each company.

rainyni0812UID: 2186847

是不是在一个帖子下作每次作业的链接，这样好找阿，也方便自己整理。
能帮我看看我的argument吗？
三处错误都找出来了,只是不知道顺序上是不是要调一下,按作者的顺序还是重要性,按重要性应该在主题句中说明.
In this letter the arguer recommends Walnut Grove's town council to continue using EZ for trash collection. The arguer admits that EZ's monthly free is higher than its opponent ABC. But the arguer defends his recommendation by citing a town survey in which most respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year. The arguer also points out that EZ collects trash twice a week whereas ABC collects only once, besides EZ has ordered more trucks. However, close scrutiny of all these evidences reveals that they lend little support for the recommendation.    First, the letter provides no evidence that the results of the surveys are statistically reliable. Perhaps most residents who were dissatisfied with EZ's performance did not respond to the survey or even not be involved in the survey, then the results of the survey would distort the residents’ opinion as a group. Besides, the letter provides no information about the percentage of the town's residents that respond to the survey. The lower the percentage is, the less reliable the results of the surveys are.    Secondly, the arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between the times in a week trash is collected and the service quality of a certain company. Though ABC collects trash only once a week, no evidence proves twice is better. As long as the residents feel one time is enough for trash collecting, and as long as ABC can collect all trash cleanly and quickly, then ABC's service is also Ok. Let alone the ABC's fee is still $2,000 a month, which is $500 cheaper than EZ's monthly fee.    Thirdly, an order of additional trucks for EZ Disposal is mentioned by the author in order to show EZ’s advantage over ABC Waste. I think this actually would have misled the readers of that newspaper who are also going to order this kind of service. It is because the author cannot guarantee that ABC Waste will definitely have fewer trucks than EZ Disposal in the future. Indeed when ABC Waste sees their disadvantage, they may plan to purchase more trash trucks to compete with EZ Disposal. Another important thing is that we cannot simply judge the quality of the trash service merely by comparing the amount of trucks in each company. Rather, we should look at the attitude of the people who provide the service, whether they are able to collect trash on time and whether they make sure the area is still clean as before after they have collected the trash. These parts should be taken into further consideration, but not the number of trucks they possess.     In sum, the arguer is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must show the detailed information about the survey to determine whether the respondents as groups were representative of their respective population. To bolster its recommendation the arguer must provide the evidence that the town's residents care more about the frequency the company collects trash, rather than the fee they spend. To better assess the argument the arguer should also establish the relationship between the quality of the trash service and the amount of trucks in each company.