Argument17 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第2次作业 1.0 By Ashun

aashunUID: 2362747

Argument 17
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."

--------------------------------


In this argument, the arguer compares services of both EZ Disposal and ABC Waste in Walnut Grove, and then concludes that they should continue using EZ. There are some obvious fallacies in this argument.

Firstly, as it mentioned, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. How can we make a conclusion from this point? ABC collects only once, it is probably that ABC’s technology is at a higher level, and its workers are more effective. Furthermore, more collection brings more noise and interruption. In a word, about the times of trash collection, the arguer didn’t give any evidence to convince us that the more the better.

Secondly, the arguer says that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Is 20 trucks already enough for trash collection in Walnut Grove? If it is enough, EZ raising its monthly fee to buy additional trucks is disagreeable. If it is not, how can we know buying additional trucks is the best way to solve the problem? Maybe hiring some workers or updating the devices of current trucks is a more economical method. The arguer didn’t provide any information about that.

Finally, the arguer provides that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. The arguer didn’t say how many people took part in the survey, if only 10 persons in all, it didn’t make a thing.  And we didn’t know the style of the survey, maybe it only provided a selection between ‘satisfied’ and ‘unsatisfied’, many people would choose ‘satisfied’ reluctantly. Moreover, it’s a town survey of last year, how about EZ’s performance in last ten years? God only knows.

All in all, it is merely negative to evaluate the service quality of companies based only on the unreliable facts. If the arguer wants to convince us the judgment fairly, he or she should supply more substantial and concrete evidence on the trash collection system, the circumstance of Walnut Grove and the details of the survey.


*********************************************************************************
==Argument47 (提纲)==

frecklewang1984UID: 2355474

In this argument, the arguer compares services of both EZ Disposal and ABC Waste in Walnut Grove, and then concludes that they should continue using EZ. There are some obvious fallacies in this argument.

Firstly, as it mentioned, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. How can we make a conclusion from this point?个人认为直接批错误会更好 ABC collects only once是不是该有个表转折关系的连词呢, it is probably that ABC’s technology is at a higher level个人认为可以再具体一点, and its workers are more effective. Furthermore, more collection brings more noise and interruption,对这句话进行延伸，比方说，因此EZ很可能因为吵到居民而引起不满. In a word, about the times of trash collection, the arguer didn’t give any evidence to convince us that the more the better.

Secondly, the arguer says that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Is 20 trucks already enough for trash collection in Walnut Grove? If it is enough, EZ raising its monthly fee to buy additional trucks is disagreeable. If it is not, how can we know buying additional trucks is the best way to solve the problem?有点不太懂，是不是IF中的NOT弄错位置了，另外，作者没有在文中暗示过这个是the best way，它只是一个参考标准 Maybe hiring some workers or updating the devices of current trucks is a more economical method. The arguer didn’t provide any information about that.

Finally, the arguer provides that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. The arguer didn’t say how many people took part in the survey, if only 10 persons in all, it didn’t make a thing.  And we didn’t know the style of the survey, maybe it only provided a selection between ‘satisfied’ and ‘unsatisfied’, many people would choose ‘satisfied’ reluctantly. Moreover, it’s a town survey of last year, how about EZ’s performance in last ten years? God only knows.

All in all, it is merely negative to evaluate the service quality of companies based only on the unreliable facts. If the arguer wants to convince us the judgment fairly, he or she should supply more substantial and concrete evidence on the trash collection system, the circumstance of Walnut Grove and the details of the survey.
错误基本上找出来了，剩下的就是批论据了。个人感觉，这篇argu有些地方没有充分展开

guangxu3559UID: 2311047

In this argument, the arguer compares services of both EZ Disposal and ABC Waste in Walnut Grove, and then concludes that they should continue using EZ. There are some obvious fallacies in this argument.(好精致的开头,写的更具体些就更好)

Firstly, as it mentioned, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. How can we make a conclusion from this point?(感觉这句话没说完,应该是How can wen make a  conclusion.....that....,缺少conlusion的具体内容) ABC collects only once, it is probably that ABC’s technology is at a higher level, and its workers are more effective. Furthermore, more collection brings more noise and interruption. In a word, about the times of trash collection, the arguer didn’t give any evidence to convince us that the more the better.

Secondly, the arguer says that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Is 20 trucks already enough for trash collection in Walnut Grove? If it is enough, EZ raising its monthly fee to buy additional trucks is disagreeable. If it is not, how can we know buying additional trucks is the best way to solve the problem? Maybe hiring some workers or updating the devices of current trucks is a more economical method. The arguer didn’t provide any information about that.

Finally, the arguer provides that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. The arguer didn’t say how many people took part in the survey, if only 10 persons in all, it didn’t make a thing.  And we didn’t know the style of the survey, maybe it only provided a selection between ‘satisfied’ and ‘unsatisfied’, many people would choose ‘satisfied’ reluctantly. Moreover, it’s a town survey of last year, how about EZ’s performance in last ten years? God only knows.

All in all, it is merely negative to evaluate the service quality of companies based only on the unreliable facts. If the arguer wants to convince us the judgment fairly, he or she should supply more substantial and concrete evidence on the trash collection system, the circumstance of Walnut Grove and the details of the survey.

总体感觉这篇文章展开的不够,批驳点也都找到,就是缺少更深入的分析. 可能是作者在控制时间,所以没有那么细致的展开.