argument17 [kb9.11] 第3次作业

对酒当歌UID: 2210051

1:  没有证据证明ABC服务不好
2:  一周清理垃圾两次有没有必要?
3:  卡车数量和服务没有必然联系.也不知道EZ的服务内容.
4:  调查不代表居民愿意用EZ的.


The writer asserts that the Walnut Grove shouldcontinue using the EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ collects trash twice aweek while its competitor the ABC Waste collects once a week. More over the EZ had orderedadditional trucks and provides exceptionalservice. To support this conclusion, the writer also point out that, 8o percent of therespondents to last year’s survey agreed that the EZ is satisfying. At thefirst glance, it is reasonable, but analyzing this letter deeply, wewill find it not so convictive. This argument is flawed in several criticalrespects.

To begin with, the writer did not provede anyinformation about the ABC. If the ABC’s service is indeed unsatisfactory, the councilmay have no choice but the EZ. But if the ABC canthoroughlyclean the town every time and its service can basically meet the requirement ofthe residents, it will be unbelievable for the council not to choose the ABCwith a lower price.  But there is onevidence to negate the ABC’s  service .

In the second place, the write think the EZ collectstrash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But, there is no evidence toprove that once a week is not enough for the town.  There is not enough digital of the speed ofthe trash’s increase. It is possible that though ABC collects trash once aweek, it can clean more thoroughly. So, if once a week is enough, there is noneed to waste money using the EZ.

Thirdly, asthe writer mentioned, the EZ will have more trucks, but there in not enoughinformation about the increased trucks. Will they use the trucks collectingtrashes for the Walnut Grove? Maybe they will be used in another city or otherwork. If 20 trucks are enough for the town of WG, is it meaningful to have more trucks? So,I think there is not a causal relationship between the increase of the truck’snumber and EZ’s service. Nor does the writer give us enough information aboutthe exceptional service of the EZ, do they worth the increased money? So as themain reasons to support the writer’s conclusion, they are dubious in my view.

Finally, the writer referred to a survey to supportthe conclusion. The survey showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed thatthey were 'satisfied' with the EZ. But, the survey was made last year, when theprice of the EZ had not increased. The residents enjoy the EZ’s service don’tmeans they would like to pay more money. For the raised price might cause theincrease of the tax.

In sum, the argument is not convictive as it stands.To strengthen it, the speaker must get enough information about the EZ’sservice. To better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to get enoughinformation of the ABC as well as the information of the town such as  the real needs of the residents, the economiccondition, the speed with which the trash increases, and so forth. So that thecouncil can make a proper choice from rational analyse and comparison.

[ 本帖最后由 对酒当歌 于 2007-8-17 17:34 编辑 ]

wuyeUID: 2348444

首先抗议一下，全文用红色太刺眼了，建议换柔和一点的或干脆就是黑的~

以下批改：

The writer asserts that the Walnut Grove should continue using the EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ collects trash twice a week while its competitor, the ABC Waste, collects once a week. More over the EZ had ordered additional trucks and provides exceptional service. To support this conclusion, the writer also points out that, 8o percent of the respondents to last year’s survey agreed that the EZ is satisfying. （时态）At the first glance, it is reasonable, but analyzing this letter deeply, we will find it not so convictive. This argument is flawed in several critical respects.To begin with, the writer did not provide any information about the ABC. If the ABC’s service is indeed unsatisfactory, the council may have no choice but the EZ. But if the ABC can thoroughly clean the town every time and its service can basically meet the requirement of the residents, it will be unbelievable for the council not to choose the ABC with a lower price. But there is on(no) evidence to negate the ABC’s  service .In the second place, the write thinks the EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But, there is no evidence to prove that once a week is not enough for the town.  There is not(这么近的两个there be 放在一起不好看 )enough digital of the speed of the trash’s increase. It is possible that though ABC collects trash once a week, it can clean more thoroughly. So, if once a week is enough, there is no need to waste money using the EZ.
Thirdly, as the writer mentioned, the EZ will have more trucks, but there in not enough information about the increased trucks. Will they use the trucks collecting trashes for the Walnut Grove? Maybe they will be used in another city or other work. If 20 trucks are enough for the town of WG, is it meaningful to have more trucks? So, I think there is not a causal relationship between the increase of the truck’s number and EZ’s service. Nor does the writer give us enough information about the exceptional service of the EZ, do they worth the increased money? So as the main reasons to support the writer’s conclusion, they are dubious in my view.（不建议使用过多主观语气）Finally, the writer referred to a survey to support the conclusion. The survey showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with the EZ. But, the survey was made last year, when the price of the EZ had not increased. （有道理）The residents enjoy the EZ’s service don’t means they would like to pay more money. For the raised price might cause the increase of the tax.In sum, the argument is not convictive as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker must get enough information about the EZ’s service. To better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to get enough information of the ABC as well as the information of the town such as  the real needs of the residents, the economic condition, the speed with which the trash increases, and so forth. So that the council can make a proper choice from rational analyse and comparison.（有问题的一句话）

写得很好，我不会看逻辑，但是语句很通顺，不会有看不懂的啦~

[ 本帖最后由 wuye 于 2007-8-17 20:45 编辑 ]

phoenixlwUID: 2382912

严重同意楼上的,抗议全用红色书写,眼都花了~~~

1:  没有证据证明ABC服务不好
2:  一周清理垃圾两次有没有必要?
3:  卡车数量和服务没有必然联系.也不知道EZ的服务内容.
4:  调查不代表居民愿意用EZ的.


The writer asserts that the Walnut Grove should continue using the EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ collects trash twice aweek while its competitor the ABC Waste collects once a week. Moreover the EZ had ordered additional trucks and provides(时态一致) exceptional service. To support this conclusion, the writer also point out that, 8o percent of the respondents to last year’s survey agreed that the EZ is satisfying. At the first glance, it is reasonable, but analyzing this letter deeply, wewill find it not so convictive(convincing). This argument is flawed in several criticalrespects.

To begin with, the writer did not provede anyinformation about the ABC. If the ABC’s service is indeed unsatisfactory, the councilmay have no choice but the EZ. But if the ABC canthoroughlyclean the town every time and its service can basically meet the requirement ofthe residents, it will be unbelievable for the council not to choose the ABCwith a lower price.  But there is onevidence to negate the ABC’s  service .

In the second place, the write think the EZ collectstrash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But, there is no evidence toprove that once a week is not enough for the town.  There is not enough digital of the speed of(data on) the trash’s increase. It is possible that though ABC collects trash once aweek, it can clean more thoroughly. So, if once a week is enough, there is noneed to waste money using the EZ.

Thirdly, asthe writer mentioned, the EZ will have more trucks, but there in not enoughinformation about the increased trucks. Will they use the trucks collectingtrashes for the Walnut Grove?(分析得漂亮) Maybe they will be used in another city or otherwork. If 20 trucks are enough for the town of WG, is it meaningful to have more trucks? So,I think there is not a causal relationship between the increase of the truck’snumber and EZ’s service. Nor does the writer give us enough information aboutthe exceptional service of the EZ, do they worth the increased money? So as themain reasons to support the writer’s conclusion, they are dubious in my view.

Finally, the writer referred to a survey to supportthe conclusion. The survey showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed thatthey were 'satisfied' with the EZ. But, the survey was made last year, when theprice of the EZ had not increased. The residents enjoy the EZ’s service don’t(正式文体不要用缩写)means they would like to pay more money. For the raised price might cause theincrease of the tax.

In sum, the argument is not convictive(convincing) as it stands.To strengthen it, the speaker must get enough information about the EZ’sservice. To better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to get enoughinformation of the ABC as well as the information of the town such as  the real needs of the residents,(这用冒号吧,表解释) the economiccondition, the speed with which the trash increases, and so forth. So that(可以这么用吗?我不确定) thecouncil can make a proper choice from rational analyse and comparison.


语言和结构都挺好的,呵呵,继续加油

revised by No.11 Phoenixlw

goldzincUID: 2378390

我也抗议 不要全红的

The writer asserts that the Walnut Grove should continue using the EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ collects trash twice a week while its competitor the ABC Waste collects once a week. More over the EZ had ordered additional trucks and provides exceptional service. To support this conclusion, the writer also point out that, 8o(这是个小写的O不是0哟^_^) percent of the respondents to last year’s survey agreed that the EZ is satisfying. At the first glance, it is reasonable, but analyzing this letter deeply, we will find it not so convictive (M-W里面没有convictive这个词，而且convict的意思是证明有罪，所以这个词这么用似乎不对). This argument is flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, the writer did not provide any information about the ABC.(也不能这么说，其实说到ABC每周收几次垃圾，有几辆车了) If the ABC’s service is indeed unsatisfactory, the council may have no choice but the EZ. But if the ABC can thoroughly clean the town every time and its service can basically meet the requirement of the residents, it will be unbelievable for the council not to choose the ABC with a lower price.  But there is no evidence to negate the ABC’s service. (连着两个but影响逻辑)
（其实这一点放在最后说好，先用一个让步说即使EZ不差，也不能说明ABC不比EZ好；然后说对ABC提供的资料不详细——而不是没有——从而无法对比）
In the second place, the write think the EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But, there is no evidence to prove that once a week is not enough for the town.  (的确两个there be 不好)There is not enough digital of the speed of the trash’s increase(这句话是不想说没有垃圾增长速度的数字？这句话语法上不对，且与上下文不连贯，可以去掉). It is possible that though ABC collects trash once a week, it can clean more thoroughly. So, if once a week is enough, there is no need to waste money using the EZ.

Thirdly, as the writer mentioned, the EZ will have more trucks, but there in not enough information about the increased trucks. Will they use the trucks collecting trashes for the Walnut Grove? Maybe they will be used in another city or other work. If 20 trucks are enough for the town of WG, is it meaningful to have more trucks? So, I think there is not a causal relationship between the increase of the truck’s number and EZ’s service. Nor does the writer give us enough information about the exceptional service of the EZ, do they worth the increased money? So as the main reasons to support the writer’s conclusion, they are dubious in my view.
（不要用那么多反问……要用就连在一起显得有气势）
Finally, the writer referred to a survey to support the conclusion. The survey showed(shows) that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with the EZ. But, the survey was made last year, when the price of the EZ had not increased.(好观点) The residents enjoy the EZ’s service don’t means they would like to pay more money. For the raised price might cause the increase of the tax.

In sum, the argument is not convictive as it stands. To strengthen it, the speaker must get enough information about the EZ’s service. To better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to get enough information of the ABC as well as the information of the town such as the real needs of the residents, the economic condition, the speed with which the trash increases, and so forth. So that the council can make a proper choice from rational analyze and comparison.

你也说到clean了，实际上两家公司是收垃圾的，不是扫马路的。

prophetluoUID: 2240098

看了半天 ,,,楼主批驳的很有顺畅 看起来很舒服...为啥我写的就完全 郁闷捏...
就是不太清楚
To begin with
In the second place,
Thirdly,
这样是不是太好...

If 20 trucks are enough for the town of WG, is it meaningful to have more trucks?
这个问题没有作答....
呃

WHSYINGUID: 2310541

既然大家都抗议了，看来我不抗议都不行啊……不要用红色字体  …………

argument17 [kb9.11] 第3次作业

1:  没有证据证明ABC服务不好2:  一周清理垃圾两次有没有必要?3:  卡车数量和服务没有必然联系.也不知道EZ的服务内容.4:  调查不代表居民愿意用EZ的.
The writer asserts that the Walnut Grove should continue using the EZ Disposal for the reason that EZ collects trash twice a week while its competitor the ABC Waste collects once a week. More over the EZ had ordered additional trucks and provides exceptional service. To support this conclusion, the writer also point out that, 8o percent of the respondents to last year’s survey agreed that the EZ is satisfying. At the first glance, it is reasonable, but analyzing this letter deeply, we will find it not so convictive. This argument is flawed in several criticalrespects.

（个人感觉第一段写的有点长了，北美范文这么写，但估计考场上这样写应该不行吧？）To begin with, the writer did not provede any information about the ABC（这样写有点笼统了）. If the ABC’s service is indeed unsatisfactory, the council may have no choice but the EZ. But if the ABC can thoroughly clean the town every time and its service can basically meet the requirement of the residents, it will be unbelievable for the council not to choose the ABCwith a lower price.  But there is onevidence to negate the ABC’s  service .In the second place, the write think the EZ collect strash twice a week, while ABC collects only once（这样写有过攻击不力不如说the write think the EZ collect strash twice a week is a better service than ABC collects only once）. But, there is no evidence toprove that once a week is not enough for the town.  There is not enough digital of the speed ofthe trash’s increase. It is possible that though ABC collects trash once aweek, it can clean more thoroughly. So, if once a week is enough, there is noneed to waste money using the EZ(用use 感觉不是很好).

Thirdly, asthe writer mentioned, the EZ will have more trucks, but there in not enough information about the increased trucks（感觉有点笼统）. Will they use the trucks collectingtrashes for the Walnut Grove? Maybe they will be used in another city or otherwork. If 20 trucks are enough for the town of WG, is it meaningful to have more trucks? So,I think there is not a causal relationship between the increase of the truck’snumber and EZ’s service. Nor does the writer give us enough information aboutthe exceptional service of the EZ, do they worth the increased money? So as themain reasons to support the writer’s conclusion, they are dubious in my view.Finally, the writer referred to a survey to supportthe conclusion. The survey showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed thatthey were 'satisfied' with the EZ. But, the survey was made last year, when theprice of the EZ had not increased. The residents enjoy the EZ’s service don’tmeans they would like to pay more money. For the raised price might cause theincrease of the tax.In sum, the argument is not convictive as it stands.To strengthen it, the speaker must get enough information about the EZ’sservice. To better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to get enoughinformation of the ABC as well as the information of the town such as  the real needs of the residents, the economiccondition, the speed with which the trash increases, and so forth. So that thecouncil can make a proper choice from rational analyse and comparison.

[ 本帖最后由 WHSYING 于 2007-8-18 02:04 编辑 ]