Argument17 【0710G Victors互助小组】第2次作文

RohtoUID: 2387466

Argument  17.    (比较引论)
17The 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."
Outline:
1. assumption: Cost-effectiveness
1) times of serviceà reasonable increased price; quality of service
2) additional trucksà reasonable increased price; quality of service
2. survey à representative & valid
3. the fallacy of one-sidedness

Basing on the assumption that EZ reasonably enhances its monthly fee, and compared with ABC Waste, EZ Disposal could provide better trash collection services, the author concludes that Grove’s town council should continue using EZ. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

First of all, the argument tries to convince us that choosing EZ to provide trash collection services for the Walnut Grove town is a cost-effective solution, by citing several evidence concerning seemingly apparent advantages of EZ. However, the arguer fails to make readers know the actual needs of trash collection of the Walnut Grove town. What if collecting once a week and the original number of trucks ten years ago have already met the needs of the Walnut Grove town? What if with the increasing awareness of protecting their environment, the local W-G residents reduce producing garbage intentionally? If so, affording the increased monthly fees for trash collection services would be an inefficient financing. In this sense, either the fact that EZ collects trash twice—more than ABC does--or that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little in itself about which service would be a better choice for Walnut Grove.

In the second place, although the arguer also cites a lately survey to strengthen his conclusion, the mere fact that most respondents to the recent survey considered EZ’s service satisfactory provides little support to the author’s recommendation. On the contrary, before I can accept any recommendation based upon it, the survey must be shown to be more reliable. Specifically, the responses must be accurate, and the respondents must be statistically significant in number and representative of the overall W-G residents. Without evidence of the survey’s reliability, it is unlikely to draw any firm conclusion about a right choice of which company to provide better services.

Finally, the whole argument commits the fallacy of one-sidedness. It is unfair to argue in favor of the opinion that EZ will do a better job than ABC, on the basis of the above evidence only about EZ. It is entirely possible that ABC provides a better quality of service for its clients. It is also possible that ABC utilizes high-tech methods to dispose trashes more efficiently and protects residents’ health and environment from pollution in a better way. Without any information from the argument about the work conditions and service efficiency of ABC, the arguer cannot justify his recommendation of EZ over ABC.

In summary, to make readers convince of the recommendation that EZ would be a more sound choice than ABC to do the trash collection work for the W-G town, the author would have to provide evidence about ABC’s services. To strengthen the argument, the arguer still needs to make a thorough analysis of cost-benefit of the two trash collection companies.

[ 本帖最后由 Rohto 于 2007-9-3 11:28 编辑 ]

accomplish2008UID: 2330775

Basing on the assumption that EZ reasonably enhances its monthly fee, and compared with ABC Waste, EZ Disposal could provide better trash collection services, the author concludes that Grove’s town council should continue using EZ. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

First of all, the argument tries to convince us that choosing EZ to provide trash collection services for the Walnut Grove town is a cost-effective solution, by citing several evidence concerning seemingly apparent[apparently] advantages of EZ. However, the arguer fails to make readers know the actual needs of trash collection of the Walnut Grove town. What if collecting once a week and the original number of trucks ten years ago have already met the needs of the Walnut Grove town? What if with the increasing awareness of protecting their environment, the local W-G residents reduce producing garbage intentionally? If so, affording the increased monthly fees for trash collection services would be an inefficient financing. In this sense, either the fact that EZ collects trash twice—more than ABC does--or that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little in itself about which service would be a better choice for Walnut Grove.[没有深入分析关于车子的逻辑错误]

In the second place, although the arguer also cites a lately survey to strengthen his conclusion, the mere fact that most respondents to[engaged in] the recent survey considered EZ’s service satisfactory[satisfied with EZ’s service， 表达不地道] provides little support to the author’s recommendation. On the contrary, before I can accept any recommendation based upon it, the survey must be shown to be more reliable[本来就不可靠，哪来的更可靠呢？shown to be statistics reliable]. Specifically, the responses must be accurate, and the respondents must be statistically significant in number and representative of the overall W-G residents. Without evidence of the survey’s reliability, it is unlikely to draw any firm conclusion about a right choice of which company to provide better services.

Finally, the whole argument commits the fallacy of one-sidedness. It is unfair to argue in favor of the opinion that EZ will do a better job than ABC, on the basis of the above evidence only about EZ. It is entirely possible that ABC provides a better quality of service for its clients. It is also possible that ABC utilizes high-tech methods to dispose trashes more efficiently and protects residents’ health and environment from pollution in a better way[好多and]. Without any information from the argument about the work conditions and service efficiency of ABC, the arguer cannot justify his recommendation of EZ over ABC.

In summary, to make readers convince of the recommendation that EZ would be a more sound choice than ABC to do the trash collection work for the W-G town, the author would have to provide evidence about ABC’s services. To strengthen the argument, the arguer still needs to make a thorough analysis of cost-benefit of the two trash collection companies.

逻辑点找的还是不错，就是有点为追求长句子而写长句子，呵呵加油阿=）

RohtoUID: 2387466

非常谢谢LS的，:handshake
我再仔细看看，今天开始写的第一篇，比以前严重退化，很焦虑。。

harwayUID: 199214

Basing （based） on the assumption(facts, these are facts, not assumptions) that EZ reasonably(it’s hard to say it’s reasonable)enhances(increases)its monthly fee, and compared with ABC Waste, EZ Disposal could provide better trash collection services(this is assumption, and I recommends that you only mention about facts here), the author concludes that Grove’s town council should continue using EZ(EZ Disposal could provide better trash collection services, suggests continuing contract with ABC). This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
First of all, the argument tries to convince us that choosing EZ to provide trash collection services for the Walnut Grove town is a cost-effective solution, by citing several evidence concerning(不如删去)seemingly apparent advantages of EZ. However, the arguer fails to make readers know (inform)the actual needs of trash collection of the Walnut Grove town. What if （通常含有如果。。。那将会如何的意思，但是这里似乎并没有这个意思，至少这里并不带有坏的结果）collecting once a week and the original (有点别扭) number of trucks ten years ago have already met the needs of the Walnut Grove town? What if with the increasing awareness of protecting their environment, the local W-G residents reduce producing garbage intentionally? If so, affording（不合适，可以用pay，不过更好的是不用） the increased monthly fees for trash collection services would be an inefficient financing . In this sense, either the fact that EZ collects trash twice—more than ABC does--or that EZ has ordered more trucks proves little in itself about which service would be a better choice for Walnut Grove.
In the second place, although the arguer also cites a lately survey to strengthen his conclusion, the mere fact that most respondents to the recent survey considered EZ’s service satisfactory provides little support to the author’s recommendation. On the contrary（这里应该不是相反的关系，你也许可以用in fact，或者不用任何连词）, before I can accept any recommendation based upon it, the survey must be shown to be more reliable. Specifically (此处是进一步解释那个survey不可靠的细节，最好能紧跟第一句，因此我建议此句和上一句互换位置，会读着非常舒服。Specifically此处用的很好，也可以用 to be specific), the responses must be accurate, and the respondents must be statistically significant in number and representative of the overall W-G residents. Without evidence of the survey’s reliability, it is unlikely to draw any firm conclusion about a right (on)choice of which company to provide better services.（如果要谈逻辑的话，关于survey最大的问题应该是它没有调查另一个公司的满意度，也许ABC的满意度是100%呢）
Finally, the whole argument commits the fallacy of one-sidedness. It is unfair to argue in favor of the opinion that EZ will do a better job than ABC, on the basis of the above evidence only about EZ.(EZ based only on the information about EZ) It is entirely possible that ABC provides a better quality of (delete) service for its clients (customers). It is also possible that ABC utilizes high-tech methods to dispose trashes more efficiently and protects residents’ health and environment from pollution in a better way. Without any information from the argument about the work conditions and service efficiency of (service provided by) ABC, the arguer cannot justify his recommendation of EZ over ABC.
In summary, to make readers convince (convinced) of the recommendation that EZ would be a more sound choice than ABC to do (for) the trash collection work for the W-G town, the author would have to provide evidence(information) about ABC’s services. To strengthen the argument, the arguer still needs to make a thorough analysis of cost-benefit of the two trash collection companies.

还行吧，继续加油。。

[ 本帖最后由 harway 于 2007-9-11 00:24 编辑 ]