argument17【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第2次作业 by xexxex

jojogaotianUID: 2189450

题目：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."
字数：402          用时：00:37:51          日期：2007-7-22 下午 09:44:49

In this argument, the speaker concludes that they should continue using EZ Disposal for collecting trash, because it ordered some new trucks and collects trash more frequently than ABC Waste. To enhance his conclusion, the speaker also cites a survey to show the extent of satisfaction of local people to EZ's performance. Although the speaker's reasoning to be appealing, we may still find out that this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First, the speaker unfairly equates the frequency of collecting trash to the company's performance.  According to this argument, the speaker fails to provide more information about EZ's performance of collecting trash. Perhaps. the reason why EZ collects trash twice a week is that there are few employees to do this job so that they cannot collect all  trash by just once. In short, the key point which the speaker neglects is the  basic reason why EZ collects trash twice a week, and thus makes his conclusion ungrounded.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly assumes that all the ordered new trucks are used to collect trash in Walnut Grove Town.  However, the speaker fails to provided any accurate evidence to support his assumption. Consider, for example, these new trucks are used to serve for other towns. Or, consider these trucks are mainly used not to collect trash but rather carry some large cleaning equipments. Without more information about the usefulness of these new ordered trucks, the conclusion of the speaker is specious.

Finally, the survey cited by the speaker is questionable. The statistical reliability of a survey is rested on the basic amount and the representative of the respondents. The speaker  does not give any statistical number of the people who were surveyed, nor does he provide the representative of local people in general. If the total number of respondents is only 20 because of the small basic amount, the speaker cannot convince me that most people in this town are satisfied with the performance of EZ Disposal.

To sum up, as it stands, the argument  is wholly unpersuasive. To enhance his  conclusion, the speaker should provide more evidence about the service quality of EZ Disposal and the new ordered trucks' usefulness. Moreover, he may also have to prove the credibility of that survey about local people's satisfaction.  Then, the speaker might reasonably to make the suggestion to continue using EZ Disposal fro collecting trash.

jojogaotianUID: 2189450

Argument 47
Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical records survive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A large meteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.
1.        只有亚欧洲提到了dimming of the sun 和extremely cold temperature，其他地区呢？变热了？这两个线索有直接原因么？？也许是化学变化？周期循环？
2.        没历史记录乱猜，
（1）根本没提到火山爆发；火山爆发可以block足够的sunlight？太夸张了
（2）没记录说人看到sudden bright flash of light就不能YY
3.boom一定是火山爆发？meteorite colliding也会boom，即使boom是来自火山爆发，这个跟遮蔽阳光没有绝对的联系，遮蔽阳光也和变冷没直接联系。

Shania.33UID: 2363464

In this argument, the speaker concludes that they should continue using EZ Disposal for collecting trash, because it ordered some new trucks and collects trash more frequently than ABC Waste. To enhance his conclusion, the speaker also cites a survey to show the extent of satisfaction of local people to EZ's performance. Although the speaker's reasoning to be appealing, we（最好不要用we这样的词，要客观）may still find out that this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and therefore unpersuasive as it stands.（开头算简洁，但是欠火候。贴个沙龙拔丝的开头给你看看，我觉得值得我们都学习：The author of this letter claims that the town council should sign the contract with EZ Disposal, because it collects the trash more frequently, possesses more trucks and provides good service based on a last year’s survey, despite that the monthly fee of EZ is much higher than that of ABC. In my opinion, this argument is logically unconvincing due to in three critical respects as follows.）

First, the speaker unfairly equates the frequency of collecting trash to the company's performance.  According to this argument, the speaker fails to provide more information about EZ's performance of collecting trash. Perhaps. the reason why EZ collects trash twice a week is that there are few employees to do this job so that they cannot collect all  trash by just once. In short, the key point which the speaker neglects is the  basic reason （rely / depend on the basis of等表达是不是好一点？）why EZ collects trash twice a week, and thus makes his conclusion ungrounded.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly assumes that all the ordered new trucks are used to collect trash in Walnut Grove Town.  However, the speaker fails to provided（注意时态provides） any accurate evidence to support his assumption. Consider, for example, these new trucks are used to serve for other towns. Or, consider these trucks are mainly used not to collect trash but rather carry some large cleaning equipments. Without more information about the usefulness of these new ordered trucks, the conclusion of the speaker is specious.

Finally, the survey cited by the speaker is questionable. The statistical reliability of a survey is rested on the basic amount and the representative of the respondents. The speaker does not give any statistical number of the people who were surveyed, nor does he provide the representative of local people in general. If the total number of respondents is only 20 because of the small basic amount, the speaker cannot convince me that most people in this town are satisfied with the performance of EZ Disposal.（本段论述的不错～）

To sum up, as it stands, the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To enhance his conclusion, the speaker should provide more evidence about the service quality of EZ Disposal and the new ordered trucks' usefulness. Moreover, he may also have to prove the credibility of that survey about local people's satisfaction.  Then, the speaker might reasonably to make the suggestion to continue using EZ Disposal fro collecting trash.

总结：
1、时态问题。题目中给的是过去时态，引用时就也用过去时态。其他的地方，论证就用一般现在时。写完检查前后一致哦，粗心就划不来啦

2、三段分论，除了数据那段感觉比较详细周密外，其他的几段比较粗线条，都是一句论述完毕。可以再有力一点。


3、结构是没问题啦，剩下的就是句子的修炼。我最近也是很头疼这个问题，怎样才能写出详细充分，漂亮多变的句子和短语呢? 一起加油，努力探讨吧。。。

改by Shania  07.7.23

[ 本帖最后由 Shania.33 于 2007-7-23 12:32 编辑 ]

guangxu3559UID: 2311047

题目：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."
字数：402          用时：00:37:51          日期：2007-7-22 下午 09:44:49

In this argument, the speaker concludes that they should continue using EZ Disposal for collecting trash, because it (has) ordered some new trucks and collects trash more frequently than ABC Waste. To enhance his conclusion, the speaker also cites a survey to show the extent of satisfaction of local people to EZ's performance. Although the speaker's reasoning(reason是否就可以了) to be appealing, we may still find out that this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and therefore unpersuasive as it stands.很归整的开头!

First(Firstly和后面的Secondly对应), the speaker unfairly equates the frequency of collecting trash to the company's performance.  According to this argument, the speaker fails to provide more information about EZ's performance of collecting trash. Perhaps. the reason why EZ collects trash twice a week is that there are few employees to do this job so that they cannot collect all  trash by just once. In short, the key point which the speaker neglects is the  basic reason why EZ collects trash twice a week, and thus makes his conclusion ungrounded. 这段中可以就每周两次服务剖析的更透彻些,比如可能这个地区每周一次已经足够了,两次就有些显得浪费,这样更有说服力.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly assumes that all the ordered new trucks are used to collect trash in Walnut Grove Town.  However, the speaker fails to provided(应该是provide) any accurate evidence to support his assumption. Consider, for example, these new trucks are used to serve for other towns. Or, consider these trucks are mainly used not to collect trash but rather carry some large cleaning equipments.(总感觉Consider在这用的有些别扭,其实用个If就够了) Without more information about the usefulness of these new ordered trucks, the conclusion of the speaker is specious.

Finally, the survey cited by the speaker is questionable. The statistical reliability of a survey is rested on the basic amount and the representative of the respondents. The speaker  does not give any statistical number of the people who were surveyed, nor does he provide the representative of local people in general. If the total number of respondents is only 20 because of the small basic amount, the speaker cannot convince me that most people in this town are satisfied with the performance of EZ Disposal.

To sum up, as it stands, the argument  is wholly unpersuasive. To enhance his  conclusion, the speaker should provide more evidence about the service quality of EZ Disposal and the new ordered trucks' usefulness. Moreover, he may also have to prove the credibility of that survey about local people's satisfaction.  Then, the speaker might reasonably to make the suggestion to continue using EZ Disposal fro collecting trash.

总体感觉文章结构和思路都很清晰,但每部分的批驳稍显简洁了点,应更有力些.