argument17 [0710G +U Aug小组]第9次作业

ddbearUID: 2275294

In this letter the author opposes the proposal from Walnut Grove's town council which is switching from WZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his assertion, the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, will own more trucks than ABC and receives a high satisfaction rate during last year. However, there are some logic flaws which might lead this assertion open to doubt.

First of all, the arguer claims that, comparing with ABC's once a week mode, EZ collects trash twice a week. Therefore, it is worthy to pay higher fee for such a more frequent service. But the argument do not show any evidence that twice a week mode is really better and more suit for Walnut Grove's town than once a week mode. Perhaps, lacking relevant skills or devices, workers in EZ Disposal cannot finish their job at a time. It is equally possible that residents in Walnut Grove's town are of small amount thus they do not need collecting trash by twice a week. If this is the case, simple figure, two is better than one, does not mean anything to the practical situation of Walnut Grove's town. Accordingly, there is no way to get the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC, as the author claims.

Secondly, the arguer considers that EZ could provide a better service because it will own more trucks than ABC. Undoubtedly, the more trucks mean the larger workload. However, there is no evidence to prove that those new trucks are ordered for and will work in Walnut Grove's town. Let's assume this case. EZ Disposal wants to enlarge his dimensions and has made a service contract with another town. Perhaps when Walnut Grove's town still use EZ next year, even if the company has more than 20 trucks, only 15 of them could be sent to service Walnut Grove's town. Without explaining the deep reason of the increasing number of trucks in EZ, the author's claim that they should continue using EZ since it will hold more trucks is not well supported.

Thirdly, another problem with this argument involves the cited statistics which states 80 percent of respondents agree that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. We are not informed whether this survey was investigated in the whole town and how many persons responded it. For example, perhaps this survey was held during a party in which the attendees are only the political leaders and the rich. Besides, perhaps the questionnaires were delivered to every resident's house, yet only half of them sent it back. In both cases, the statement is unconvincing since the author could not guarantee the reliability of his cited statistics.

To sum up, the author could not justify his suggestion on the basis of scant evidence provided in the letter. To strengthen the assertion the author must provide firm evidence that EZ Disposal could offer better service than ABC Waste and deserve a rising fee, while residents in Walnut Grove's town are not only assuredly satisfied with the service of EZ, but also wish to keep this contract.

571633UID: 2333480

In this letter theauthor opposes the proposal from Walnut Grove's town council which is switchingfrom WZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his assertion, the author points outthat EZ collects trash twice a week, will own more trucks than ABC and receivesa high satisfaction rate during last year. However, there are some logic flaws [there are some logistic flaws] which mightlead this assertion open to doubt.First ofall, the arguer claims that, comparing with ABC's once a week mode, EZ collectstrash twice a week. Therefore, it is worthy to pay higher fee for such a morefrequent service. But the argument donot[单复数] show any evidencethat twice a week mode is really better and more suit [suit是动词] for Walnut Grove's town than once a week mode. Perhaps, lackingrelevant skills or devices, workers in EZ Disposal cannot finish their job at atime. It is equally possible that residents in Walnut Grove's town are of smallamount thus they do not need collecting trash by [是否要by] twice a week. If this is the case, simple figure, two isbetter than one, does not mean anything to the practical situation of WalnutGrove's town. Accordingly, there is no way to get the conclusion that EZ isbetter than ABC, as the author claims.Secondly,the arguer considers that EZ could provide a better service because it will ownmore trucks than ABC. Undoubtedly, the more trucks mean the larger workload.However, there is no evidence to prove that those new trucks are ordered forand will work in Walnut Grove's town. Let's assume this case. EZ Disposal wantsto enlarge his dimensions and has made a service contract with another town.Perhaps when Walnut Grove's town stilluse[时态] EZ next year, even ifthe company has more than 20 trucks, only 15 of them could be sent to service WalnutGrove's town. Without explaining the deep reason of the increasing number oftrucks in EZ, the author's claim that they should continue using EZ since itwill hold more trucks is not well supported.Thirdly,another problem with this argument involves the cited statistics which states80 percent of respondents agree that they were 'satisfied' with EZ'sperformance. We are not informed whether this survey was investigated in thewhole town and how many persons responded it. For example, perhaps this surveywas held during a party in which the attendees are only the political leadersand the rich. Besides, perhaps the questionnaires were delivered to everyresident's house, yet only half of them sent it back. In both cases, thestatement is unconvincing since the author could not guarantee the reliabilityof his cited statistics.To sumup, the author could not justify his suggestion on the basis of scant evidenceprovided in the letter. To strengthen the assertion the author must providefirm evidence that EZ Disposal could offer better service than ABC Waste anddeserve a rising fee, while residents in Walnut Grove's town are not onlyassuredly satisfied with the service of EZ, but also wish to keep thiscontract.

模板不错，但最好注意一些小问题。

[ 本帖最后由 571633 于 2007-8-4 09:58 编辑 ]