Argument17 【7.22，让砖头来的更猛烈些吧】

gyyxUID: 2290150

The author in this argument deems the council makes a mistake to switch EZ to ABC for disposal of trash collection. To support this conclusion, the author states that EZ will collect twice a week, have more trucks, and exceptional service, although high price. Before make this conclusion convictive or unconvincing, the evidence given above should be examined from several other angles.

At the beginning, the first evidence of the argument is that EZ collects trash once a week more than ABC, which could not follow that EZ is better than ABC.  Maybe there is no necessary for another collect for the trash is not abundant. If the trash of Walnut Grove's town is sufficient, and people throw trash twice or even more times a week in a batches, EZ will be better proper to it, as it collect twice a week. But if not this situation, EZ's another collect is a waste of energy and time, and maybe due to this unnecessary collect EZ charges more than ABC. As lack of information about the trash amount, we could not deduce that EZ is better than ABC.

The second evidence supported the author's conclusion is that EZ has ordered additional trucks, which do not mean EZ will provide better service. Maybe these trucks will serve for other town's disposal, not for us. Or perhaps, these trucks are for other use, as EZ will get into another service other than trash collect. Moreover, even if these trucks are for our town to collect trash, maybe the trash is not so abundant to need so many trucks, now is enough. So, without ruling out other possibilities and strong evidence, we could not improve the author's conclusion.

Furthermore, the author assume that EZ provide an exceptional service rely on the mere survey, in which 80 percent of responders agreed that they were satisfied with EZ’s performance last year. As in my concern, only last year is not enough to indicate this. Maybe the survey in the past years, the performance of EZ is even worse, and the last year’s is only an accident. Or maybe EZ’s performance is worse and worse, for the past years it decreased every year. And, we are suffering from lack of information about ABC’s performance, maybe in last year’s survey the evaluation of ABC is not 80 percent satisfied, it is higher, even 100 percent. All this discussing above the author could not refute, as lack of evidences.  

To summarize, the author of this argument oversimplified rely on the evidence and make unwarranted assumption that EZ could provide better service than ABC. If the arguer want us to convince his conclusion that the council is wrong, he must provide the information about the amount of the town’s trash to demonstrate that twice a week is necessary, and information about the additional trucks—they will used to collect our town’s trash, and the survey of past years and ABC’s performance to illustrate EZ’s exceptional service.

njuzhshaoUID: 2258118

说说对Argument的感觉，本文写的是并列的结构把，gyyx的文章，总结一下三段中对 作者企图 的理解：
1．...could not follow that EZ is better than ABC...
2．...do not mean EZ will provide better service...
3．...EZ provide an exceptional service ...
是否感觉几乎就是一样的呢？
这样不做区分的结果是所有的攻击点都可以直指最终结论，文章写起来行云流水，但是最大的问题就是可能就是“流水”。
再次援引imong的观点，当你发现作者在做看上去相似的白痴论证的时候，一般上是内在的区别和逻辑层次还并没有深刻领会，感觉比较理想的结构是顺着原文的逻辑层次一一批驳最有说服力，文章也相应的精彩。
站在原作者的角度上，其实论证EZ“好”，无非就是 成本/收益 ,本题特殊在成本的问题已经无需讨论，而收益在这里似乎等价于 服务质量：exceptional service。（这种成本无需讨论的形式可能误导了作者，因为最终也没有拿起cost的武器来讨论EZ的坏处。）文章转向对service的讨论。为了证明 EZ 的服务质量好，作者“想要”分别举出 软件 和 硬件 上的优势（白箱测试），并且“想要”用反响好来证明（黑箱测试）。具体的逻辑如下：

EZ每周多收一次垃圾   ->   服务流程更科学有效  ->||
                                                                          ||==>  EZ的服务好 ||
EZ拥有卡车数量将更多  -> 硬件设施更有优势     ->||                           ||
                                                                                                       ||====> EZ应当入选
                                                                   ||
在去年80%的回应者同意EZ的表现是“满意”||======>  EZ的服务好  ||

来看看gyyx的论证：

第一段：
Maybe there is no necessary for another collect for the trash is not abundant. If the trash of Walnut Grove's town is sufficient, and people throw trash twice or even more times a week in a batches, EZ will be better proper to it, as it collect twice a week. But if not this situation, EZ's another collect is a waste of energy and time, and maybe due to this unnecessary collect EZ charges more than ABC.
只谈逻辑，此段论述恰好对应上述“多收->有效”

第二段：
Maybe these trucks will serve for other town's disposal, not for us. Or perhaps, these trucks are for other use, as EZ will get into another service other than trash collect.
此段对应“EZ用用卡车数量更多”
Moreover, even if these trucks are for our town to collect trash, maybe the trash is not so abundant to need so many trucks, now is enough.
此段对应“更多->优势”

第三段：
As in my concern, only last year is not enough to indicate this. Maybe the survey in the past years, the performance of EZ is even worse, and the last year’s is only an accident. Or maybe EZ’s performance is worse and worse, for the past years it decreased every year. And, we are suffering from lack of information about ABC’s performance, maybe in last year’s survey the evaluation of ABC is not 80 percent satisfied, it is higher, even 100 percent.
此段对应“80%满意->服务好”

这样看来这篇文章在攻击点的覆盖上已经做得很好了，美中不足的是在攻击点的前后缺少用以理清逻辑结构的几句话，使得本身略有层次的论证全部直接指向结果（正如一开始举出的几个句子）。当然这篇原文的逻辑十分清楚明了，想来gyyx也清楚，只是如果能够在写文章的时候有意的点出，则可能是画龙点睛之笔。另外，最后一层关系也可以挑出一点漏洞，酌情提及。