argument17 [SJTU-ETB6 10G]第一次作业

zhangjunhaoUID: 2276310

花了四十五分钟才搞定，三十分钟还写不完，怎么办？

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 496          TIME: 00:45:57          DATE: 2007-7-30 13:48:10

In this argument, the author concludes that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than swift to ABC Waste. To support this conclusion, the author claims that EZ collects trash twice a week. And it has ordered additional trucks. Additionally, a survey suggests that 80 percent of respondents last year agreed they were satisfied with EZ's performance. But a careful examination will find that the conclusion is just absurd and groundless.

Firstly, the argument bases on the assumption that the more times the company collects trash in a week, the better it performs, which is surely unwarranted. The author doesn’t tell us how efficient the two companies perform the task respectively. It is entirely possible the EZ Company has fewer employees in that it must perform the collecting task twice a week. In contrary, the ABC has more workers. Perhaps the EZ Company divides the whole town's collecting assignment into two parts. On some day, only a part of the total trash is collected and the remained trash is left to the other day's collecting. But the ABC Company collects all the trash in one time. So we can see that the efficiency of ABC is probably higher than that of the EZ Company.

Secondly, the author don't identify that the extra trucks that EZ has ordered are intended for collecting money. Maybe these trucks are used to transform the cargos which have nothing to do with the trash collecting. Even if the trucks are used for trash colleting, it doesn't necessarily mean that the efficiency of the EZ Company will rise significantly. Perhaps the ever existing 20 trucks are enough for trash collecting. The additional trucks will contrarily increase the burden of the EZ Company. It would attribute more money to the mending of the trucks. Unless the author provides information about the current situation of the utilization of the truck, we are not convinced that more trucks will bring up the efficiency of the EZ Company.

Thirdly, the survey cited in the argument is lack in credibility. The author fails to prove that the respondents of the survey are representative to all the residents in the town because we are not informed how many people take part in this survey. If there are only a small number of residents responding to the survey, the survey is of no significance. Even assuming the sample is large enough, the author is also unable to convince us because it is likely that the respondents are just ones who are satisfied with the company and others who are not so content are just neglected. Unless the author could rule out these possibilities, the conclusion is not persuasive at all.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is not persuasive because the author is unable to provide enough cogent evidence to substantiate the conclusion. To support his conclusion better, the author should tell us the efficiency of each company and how is the survey given out.

dacgileUID: 2367722

In this argument, the author concludes that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than swift to ABC Waste. To support this conclusion, the author claims that EZ collects trash twice a week. And it has ordered additional trucks. Additionally, a survey suggests that 80 percent of respondents last year agreed they were satisfied with EZ's performance. But a careful examination will find that the conclusion is just absurd and groundless.
[你看看这篇有关Argument开头的讨论吧：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=134092，到现在我也没想好怎么开头比较合适。]

Firstly, the argument bases on the assumption that the more times the company collects trash in a week, the better it performs, which is surely unwarranted. The author doesn’t tell us how efficient the two companies perform the task respectively. It is entirely possible the EZ Company has fewer employees in that it must perform the collecting task twice a week. In contrary[On the contrary/ In contrast], the ABC has more workers. Perhaps the EZ Company divides the whole town's collecting assignment into two parts. On some day, only a part of the total trash is collected and the remained trash is left to the other day's collecting. But the ABC Company collects all the trash in one time [at one time?]. So we can see that the efficiency of ABC is probably higher than that of the EZ Company.

Secondly, the author don't [doesn't] identify that the extra trucks that EZ has ordered are intended for collecting money[这句话什么意思？没看懂。]. Maybe these trucks are used to transform the cargos which have nothing to do with the trash collecting. Even if the trucks are used for trash colleting, it doesn't necessarily mean that the efficiency of the EZ Company will rise significantly. Perhaps the ever existing 20 trucks are enough for trash collecting. The additional trucks will contrarily increase the burden of the EZ Company. It would attribute more money to the mending of the trucks. Unless the author provides information about the current situation of the utilization of the truck, we are not convinced that more trucks will bring up the efficiency of the EZ Company.[这几方面分析得很到位了，1.十分具体得说出了这些多出的卡车其他用途；2. 即便是用于垃圾回收，很可能增加企业负担；3.最后再踩一脚：你一定要保证这些车的用途我才相信。]

Thirdly, the survey cited in the argument is lack in credibility. The author fails to prove that the respondents of the survey are representative to all the residents in the town because we are not informed how many people take part in this survey. If there are only a small number of residents responding[为了跟上句话呼应，是不是应该用involved in] to the survey, the survey is of no significance. Even assuming the sample is large enough, the author is also unable to convince us because it is likely that the respondents are just ones who are satisfied with the company and others who are not so content are just neglected. Unless the author could rule out these possibilities, the conclusion is not persuasive at all.[嗯，1。说它样本不够大；2。说它即使样本够大，回复人数太少也不能说明问题。]

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is not persuasive because the author is unable to provide enough cogent evidence to substantiate the conclusion. To support his conclusion better, the author should tell us the efficiency of each company and how is the survey given out.

1.写得很好;
2.时间不是大问题，用“狂写”来对付argu吧;
3.文章中少用we、us之类的是不是更好些呢？

[ 本帖最后由 dacgile 于 2007-8-1 19:16 编辑 ]