argument17『desperado小组』第三次作业 by anndy

anndyUID: 2436020

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.”

Outline:
1．             一周两次是否有必要，值不值
2．             只提及了EZ车的数量，没有与ABC比较
3．             调查不可靠（样本，时间）,同时没有比较

The letter’s author recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal, not ABC Waste. In order to support the recommendation, the author cites the following facts about EZ: (1) EZ collects trash frequently than ABC; (2) EZ has ordered more trucks; (3) EZ provides exceptional service according to a survey. Close scrutiny of each of the facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

First, the recommendation depends on the assumption that collecting trash twice a week is certainly abstractive than collecting only once, even if we must pay more $125. Yet the letter has no evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps it is not necessary for WG town to collect trash twice a week, duo to the quantity of trash. In contrast, it maybe brings more problems. Such as: noise, traffic jam. Given that it is necessary, it may be worthless to pay more dollars. In short, the author provide no evidence that WG should pay more money for a frequently trash collection.

Secondly, the quantity of trucks which EZ has amounts to nothing, without comparing with ABC. Perhaps ABC has more trucks than EZ. Or, perhaps EZ’s trucks are smaller than ABC’s, so they ordered additional trucks. Moreover, more trucks do not amount to more or better services. Perhaps WG do not need so many trucks.

Finally, it is unpersuasive to draw the recommendation according to last year’s town survey. It might be problematic in two respects: first, we are not informed the detail about the respondents. Perhaps most residents did not take part in the survey. The result is   unrepresentative at all. Secondly, the author infers from the last year’s town survey that the residents are satisfied with EZ’s performance in this year or in future: Absent evidence to support this inference. Perhaps the residents of WG have a great change. Or, perhaps EZ employs many fresh workers. Given that the survey is valid, and EZ’s performance will be good enough in future, it is hasty that draw the recommendation without providing any information about ABC’s performance. Perhaps ABC can do a better work, the rather that, they bid a lower price.

In summary, the recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide more evidences to substantiate the need of the time to collect trash, and the quantity of the trucks. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the comparing of EZ’s and ABC’s performance.

samanthayangUID: 2195287

The author recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal, not（instead of?） ABC Waste. In order to support the recommendation, the author cites the following facts about EZ: (1) EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC; (2) EZ has ordered additional trucks; (3) EZ provides exceptional service according to a survey. Close scrutiny of each of the facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

Firstly (?) the recommendation depends on the assumption that collecting trash twice a week is certainly more abstractive than only once, even if we must pay more $125. Yet the letter has no evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps it is not necessary for WG town to collect trash twice a week, due to the quantity of trash. In contrast, it may bring more problems. Such as, noise and traffic jam. Given that it is necessary, it may be worthless to pay more dollars. In short, the author has provide no evidence that WG should pay more money for a frequently trash collection.

Secondly, the quantity of trucks which EZ has amounts to nothing, without comparing with ABC. Perhaps ABC has more trucks than EZ. Or, perhaps EZ’s trucks are smaller than ABC’s, so they ordered additional trucks. Moreover, more trucks do not amount to more or better services. Perhaps WG do not need so many trucks.

Finally, it is unpersuasive to draw the recommendation according to last year’s town survey. It might be problematic in two respects: first, we are not informed the detail about the respondents. Perhaps most residents did not take part in the survey. The result is unrepresentative at all. Secondly, the author infers from the last year’s town survey that the residents are satisfied with EZ’s performance in this year or in future: Absent evidence to support this inference. Perhaps the residents of WG have a great change. Or, perhaps EZ employs many fresh workers. Given that the survey is valid, and EZ’s performance will be good enough in future, it is hasty to draw the recommendation without providing any information about ABC’s performance. Perhaps ABC can do a better work, the rather that, they bid a lower price.

In summary, the recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide more evidences to substantiate the need of the time to collect trash, and the quantity of the trucks. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the comparing of EZ’s and ABC’s performance.

芃旸评价：我是参照grace的第二次修改来做的哦~基本漏洞都抓住了，分析也比较到位，还没来得及看你之前的习作。等下我还有课的，呵呵。
好的地方能够让大家借鉴的地方我都下划线标出来了。
有一些小的语言点我看到也帮你出了修改建议，如果不对就一起讨论下咯~
第一次改先就这么多吧，拜拜咯~o(∩_∩)o

samanthayangUID: 2195287

格式没办法粘贴啊……MM说怎么办吧。你要的话我发给你

samanthayangUID: 2195287

哦……不是MM。sorry

grace040802UID: 2348819

The letter’s author recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal,but not ABC Waste. In order to support the recommendation, the author cites the following facts about EZ: (1) EZ collects trash frequently than ABC; (2) EZ has ordered more trucks; (3) EZ provides exceptional service according to a survey. Close scrutiny of each of the facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

Firstly, the recommendation depends on the assumption that collecting trash twice a week is certainly abstractive than collecting only once, even if we must pay more $125. Yet the letter has no evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps it is not necessary for WG town to collect trash twice a week, due to the quantity of trash. In contrast, it maybe brings more problems. Such as: noise, traffic jam.(感觉有点反驳过头,多收一次垃圾,垃圾车会造成交通阻塞,有很大的噪音?) Not given that it is necessary, it may be worthless to pay more dollars. In short, the author provide no evidence that WG should pay more money for a frequently trash collection.

Secondly, the quantity(数量?是要说质量吗?quality) of trucks which EZ have amounts to nothing, without comparing with ABC.(此句有点奇怪哦,不是和ABC在数量上比较了吗?是没有质量上比较) Perhaps ABC has more trucks than EZ. Or, perhaps EZ’s trucks are smaller than ABC’s, so they ordered additional trucks. Moreover, more trucks do not amount to more or better services. Perhaps WG do not need so many trucks.

Finally, it is unpersuasive to draw the recommendation according to last year’s town survey. It might be problematic in two respects: first,(on one hand会不会更好些) we are not informed the detail about the respondents. Perhaps most residents did not take part in the survey. The result is   unrepresentative at all. Secondly(on the other hand), the author infers from the last year’s town survey that the residents are satisfied with EZ’s performance in this year or in future: Absent evidence to support this inference. Perhaps the residents of WG have a great change. (?感觉这样好像质疑不是很好,不过也是个方面)Or, perhaps EZ employs many fresh workers. Given that the survey is valid, and EZ’s performance will be good enough in future, it is hasty that draw the recommendation without providing any information about ABC’s performance. Perhaps ABC can do a better work, the rather that, they bid a lower price. (逻辑错误找到了, 但是从你质疑的角度看,这段感觉不是很有说服力,是不是应该把重点放在调查的可信度上,而不将来的变化因素?)

In summary, the recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide more evidences to substantiate the need of the time to collect trash, and the quality(质量) of the trucks. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the comparing of EZ’s and ABC’s performance.

整体感觉框架是有了,但是在反驳时不是很有说服力.(记得下次就不给你修改语法和拼写错误了:) )