Argue17 [Mettle 7.20] by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

In this letter, the writer suggests that Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should not replace EZ Disposal with ABC Waste for three major reasons:1.EZ collects trash more often than ABC 2.EZ has increased its truck numbers 3.80% of respondents surveyed were satisfied with EZ's performance in the last year. However, these reasons are not persuasive enough to convince us.

First of all, the efficience of the two companies are not compared. As is mentioned above, EZ collects trash twice a week, but it charges $500 more than ABC. WG should per $1250 for each collecting of EZ and $2000 for each collecting of ABC. However, the total expenses of ABC is cheaper, so it is not clear which company works more effciently. Since no other details about the two companies are presented, we may not exclude the possibility that ABC works more quickly and is better for WG. Still, it is common acknowledgements that trash truck are noisy and has some odor, therefore it is no good for the residents if EZ's trucks come too often.

Secondly, there is no obvious relationship between a company's truck numbers and its working effects. Since no further information about the allocation of the trucks is provided, no one can guarantee that these new ordered trucks will come and collect trash for WG. So the chances are likely to be that EZ just expended its service area, rather than endeavored to raise its service quality.

Thirdly, the survey lacks certain details to be scientific and convincible. The number of participants of this survey is not provided. So it is probably that only a few residents were queried and these people just received the comparatively best service of EZ. Morever, even though most of the residents were surveyed and 80% were satisfied, we can not expel the possibility that the average satisfied number of people toward trash collecting companies are well above 90%, so it renders EZ to be incompetent. Then, ABC may be a better choice for WG at last judgement.

In sum, this letter lacks some important details and informations, so it is not very convincable. The writer has to give out the exact comparing statistic of the two companies and the detailed backgrounds of the survey, so that his article could be more acceptable.

感觉字数总是不太够。

macawUID: 2291086

Argue17 [Mettle 7.20] by werecat
In this letter, the writer suggests that Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should not replace EZ Disposal with ABC Waste for three major reasons:1.EZ collects trash more often than ABC 2.EZ has increased its truck numbers 3.80% of respondents surveyed were satisfied with EZ's performance in the last year. However, these reasons are not persuasive enough to convince us.

First of all, the efficience of the two companies are not compared. As is mentioned above, EZ collects trash twice a week, but it charges $500 more than ABC. WG should per $1250 for each collecting of EZ and $2000 for each collecting of ABC. However, the total expenses of ABC is cheaper, so it is not clear which company works more effciently. Since no other details about the two companies are presented, we may not exclude the possibility that ABC works more quickly and is better for WG. Still, it is common acknowledgements that trash truck are noisy and has some odor, therefore it is no good for the residents if EZ's trucks come too often.
这段前面的让步感觉不但没有加强力度，反倒给人家说了理。总花费少了，有什么好处没说，是政府是在乎钱还是在乎效率？应该点明。从字面上看，单次效率高的肯定是EZ，因为没演绎说明具体原因。最后那个臭味噪音理由牵强，据说国外垃圾车都很先进的，这问题似乎没有，现在国内一些城市的垃圾车有些也都换的比较牛了。

Secondly, there is no obvious relationship between a company's truck numbers and its working effects. Since no further information about the allocation of the trucks is provided, no one can guarantee that these new ordered trucks will come and collect trash for WG. So the chances are likely to be that EZ just expended its service area, rather than endeavored to raise its service quality.
这段最后一句好像很有力度

Thirdly, the survey lacks certain details to be scientific and convincible. The number of participants of this survey is not provided. So it is probably that only a few residents were queried and these people just received the comparatively best service of EZ.【这以上说的有理，下面似乎就偏了】 Morever, even though most of the residents were surveyed and 80% were satisfied, we can not expel the possibility that the average satisfied number of people toward trash collecting companies are well above 90%, so it renders EZ to be incompetent. Then, ABC may be a better choice for WG at last judgments.
后面一段没懂，就算80％满意度是真的，后面怎么90％？意思是ABC的满意度？

In sum, this letter lacks some important details and informations, so it is not very convincable. The writer has to give out the exact comparing statistic of the two companies and the detailed backgrounds of the survey, so that his article could be more acceptable.

感觉最主要的应该最先说，钱的问题是最主要的，但是感觉怪怪的，这文章要我们站在政府的角度上。楼主可能是想用反证，推对方论据到极端，然后错误。不过好像没推到头，呵呵：）