argument17 [kb911]第三次作业

chineseliUID: 2366474

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: 357          TIME: 01:11:26          DATE: 8/17/2007 12:16:55 PM

The writer advocates Walnut Grove should continue using EZ to collect trash and the town council's decision to switch to ABC Waste is a mistake.To support his idea,the writter presents three points: the first is EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once, the second is EZ will have more trucks than ABC Waste, and the third, a survey showed people's high satisfaction with EZ. The points sound logical ,but in fact, they suffer many fallacies which will be discussed below.

To begin with, taking the trash collection frequency as a reason for the choice without further investigation is unwise. The writer should find out whether collecting trash twice a week is needed. If there is not so much trash that needs to be clear so frequently, collecting twice a week would be redundant and the once-a-week service might be enough. So the first point of the argument cannot stand.

In addition, it is too hasty  to choose EZ based on the additional trucks EZ has ordered. What are the additional trucks used to? Are they used to serve Walnut Grove or to serve other communities? Obviously, if the trucks are not planned to serve Walnut Grove, they will have nothing to do with the argument. The writer neither tell us any information about ABC Waste. Have ABC Waste ordered additional trucks as well ?If so, the predominance of EZ doesn't exists. Therefore, the second point given by the writer is unreasonable too.

Finally, let's turn to the last point of the argument. The result of the survey cannot fully support the writer's advocation. The high satisfaction rate of EZ's performance really shows that EZ has done a good job, but it does not mean ABC Waste couldn't compete the work . May be the high satisfaction rate of EZ only because the residents were accustomed to the service of EZ. It can be the case that the residents will be  just as ,if  not more, satisfied with ABC Waste as EZ. So the last point is groundless.

In sum, the argument made by the writer is unwell reasoned. To make his argument persuasive, the writer needs to give a more specific statement about the trash quantity and the use of EZ's additional trucks, more details of ABC Waste are also indispensable. Without these further info, the writer's idea cannot be supported.



[ 本帖最后由 chineseli 于 2007-8-17 16:16 编辑 ]

alisingUID: 2337739

The writer advocates Walnut Grove should continue using EZ to collect trash and the town council's decision to switch to ABC Waste is a mistake. To support his idea, the writer presents three points: the first is EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC does only once, the second is EZ will have more trucks than ABC Waste, and the third, a survey showed people's high solidification with EZ. The points sound logically , but in fact, they suffer many fallacies which will be discussed below.

To begin with, taking the trash collection frequency as a reason for the choice without further investigation is unwise. The writer should find out whether collecting trash twice a week is necessary. If there is not so much trash that needs to be clear so frequently, collecting twice a week would be redundant and the once-a-week service might be enough. So the first point of the argument cannot stand.(可以再深入些，详细的列举什么情况下倒一次垃圾就够， 比如人口少等等。 还有一点政府开支预算，因为EZ贵嘛，可能是预算少不得不换成ABC了)

In addition, it is too hasty  to choose EZ based on the additional trucks EZ has ordered. What are the additional trucks used to? Are they used to serve Walnut Grove or to serve other communities? Obviously, if the trucks are not planned to serve Walnut Grove, they will have nothing to do with the argument. The writer does not tell us any information about ABC Waste either. Have ABC Waste ordered additional trucks as well? If so, the predominance of EZ doesn't exist. Therefore, the second point given by the writer is unreasonable either.

Finally, let's turn to the last point of the argument. The result of the survey cannot fully support the writer’s advocation. The high satisfaction rate of EZ's performance really shows that EZ has done a good job, but it does not mean ABC Waste couldn't compete the work. Maybe EZ can gets the high satisfaction rate is only because the residents were accustomed to the service of EZ. It can be the case that the residents will be just as ,if  not more, satisfied with ABC Waste as EZ. So the last point is groundless.

In sum, the argument made by the writer is unwell reasoned. To make his argument persuasive, the writer needs to give a more specific statement about the trash quantity and the use of EZ's additional trucks, more details of ABC Waste are also indispensable. Without these further info, the writer’s idea cannot be supported.
(首先格式错误，每大段中间空一行，每个标点后面空一格。每段开头的连接都不错哦，批驳还可以再深入些，注意拼写哦~)
只是自己一点愚见，加油哦~

alisingUID: 2337739

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=723963
欢迎批改~

alisingUID: 2337739

http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-724009-1-1.html    换成这个了~。。。

对酒当歌UID: 2210051

The writeradvocates Walnut Grove should continue using EZ to collect trash and the towncouncil's decision to switch to ABC Waste is a mistake.To support his idea,thewritter presents three points: the first is EZ collects trash twice a weekwhile ABC only once, the second is EZ will have more trucks than ABC Waste, andthe third, a survey showed people's high satisfaction with EZ. The points soundlogical ,but in fact, they suffer many fallacies which will be discussed below.To begin with, taking thetrash collection frequency as a reason for the choice without furtherinvestigation is unwise. The writer should find out whether collecting trashtwice a week is needed. If there is not so much trash that needs to be clear sofrequently, collecting twice a week would be redundant and the once-a-weekservice might be enough.（个人感觉先说一次足够，再说两次多余好一些）So the first point of the argument cannotstand.In addition, it is toohasty  to choose EZ based on the additional trucks EZ has ordered.What are the additional trucks used to? Are they used to serve Walnut Grove orto serve other communities? Obviously, if the trucks are not planned to serveWalnut Grove, they will have nothing to do with the argument. The writerneither tell us any information about ABC Waste. Have ABC Waste ordered additionaltrucks as well ?If so, the predominance（个人认为，应当强调一下在数量上的优势，因为优势是各种因素的比较结果） of EZ doesn't exists. Therefore, thesecond point given by the writer is unreasonable too.Finally, let's turn to thelast point of the argument. The result of the survey cannot fully support thewriter's advocation. The high satisfaction rate of EZ's performance reallyshows that EZ has done a good job, but it does not mean ABC Waste couldn'tcompete （complete）the work . May be the high satisfaction rate of EZonly because the residents were accustomed to the service of EZ.（这句语法有问题）It can be the case that the residents willbe  just as ,if  not more, satisfied with ABC Waste as EZ.So the last point is groundless.In sum, the argument madeby the writer is unwell reasoned. To make his argument persuasive, the writerneeds to give a more specific statement about the trash quantity and the use ofEZ's additional trucks, more details of ABC Waste are also indispensable.Without these further info, the writer's idea cannot be supported.


写得不错，加油

[ 本帖最后由 对酒当歌 于 2007-8-18 12:36 编辑 ]

timtam85UID: 2323574

The writer advocates Walnut Grove should continue using EZ to collect trash and the town council's decision to switch to ABC Waste is a mistake.To support his idea,the writter presents three points: the first is EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once, the second is EZ will have more trucks than ABC Waste, and the third, a survey showed people's high satisfaction with EZ. The points sound logical ,but in fact, they suffer many fallacies which will be discussed below.(个人觉得第一段太模版化，纯粹对题目进行复述让人觉得有凑字数的嫌疑，可以参考下imong的“argument三部曲”，gter上有的）

To begin with, taking the trash collection frequency as a reason for the choice without further investigation is unwise. The writer should find out whether collecting trash twice a week is needed. If there is not so much trash that needs to be clear so frequently, collecting twice a week would be redundant and the once-a-week service might be enough. So the first point of the argument cannot stand.

In addition, it is too hasty  to choose EZ based on the additional trucks EZ has ordered. What are the additional trucks used to? Are they used to serve Walnut Grove or to serve other communities? Obviously, if the trucks are not planned to serve Walnut Grove, they will have nothing to do with the argument.（有点牵强，很吹毛求疵的感觉。。。） The writer neither tell us any information about ABC Waste. Have ABC Waste ordered additional trucks as well ?If so, the predominance of EZ doesn't exists. Therefore, the second point given by the writer is unreasonable too.

Finally, let's turn to the last point of the argument. The result of the survey cannot fully support the writer's advocation. The high satisfaction rate of EZ's performance really shows that EZ has done a good job, but it does not mean ABC Waste couldn't compete the work . May be the high satisfaction rate of EZ is only because the residents were accustomed to the service of EZ. （fragment）It can be the case that the residents will be  just as ,if  not more, satisfied with ABC Waste as EZ. So the last point is groundless.

In sum, the argument made by the writer is unwell reasoned. To make his argument persuasive, the writer needs to give a more specific statement about the trash quantity and the use of EZ's additional trucks, more details of ABC Waste are also indispensable. Without these further info, the writer's idea cannot be supported.

第一篇来说还是挺好的，语言也不错，但我觉得主要问题如下：1模板问题：太大众化，这样的模板看的很多，应该有自己的模版;  2分析欠深入，应该从大的fallfacy入手，而不应该去吹毛求疵
个人意见，仅供参考。