ARGUMENT17 【Aero小组】第7次作业

lovemxfUID: 2335206

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."

The editor concludes that the town council should also employ EZ to collect trash. To support it, the editor provides much evidence that EZ collect trash twice a week but ABC collects only once. What is more, EZ has 20 trucks and provides some exceptional service. And then, the editor cites a survey that 80 percent of respondents to agree with EZ's performance. However, the argument suffers from many reasoning problems.

Firstly, the editor fails to assume that EZ collecting trash twice a week is better than ABC doing once a week.   Because people more likely concern about working quality but not work quantity. It is perhaps that EZ do not do the work so clean that it has done the work twice a week to keep clean. But ABC just doing it once a week is enough. Without comparing the working effect, the editor could not draw a conclusion that EZ is better than ABC.

Secondly, the editor is based on an incomplete contrast, because we do not know how many trucks do ABC have and whether ABC does provide exceptional service. It is possible that there are more trucks in the ABC than EZ. It is also possible that more services are provided by ABC than EZ. Without providing the information to contrast, the argument is unwarranted.

Thirdly, the survey which the editor cites suffers several statistical problems because we do not know the study sample are sufficient in size and representative of the over all group of people whose trash EZ collects. Even though the respondents are representative, survey are also not reasonable for tendentious respondents who are more likely to participate in the survey and respond the survey content. Even though the survey's respondent are not tendentious, it do not indicate that EZ's performance is better than ABC for respondent just answering that they are satisfied with EZ's performance. Perhaps they also satisfied with ABC’s performance.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing for insufficient evidence and incomplete contrast. To support it, the editor should provide more evidence that collecting trash twice a week is better than doing once a week and 20 trucks will benefit for the city. To better assess the argument I also need more information about the details of survey’s respondents.  

还是请大家仔细检查我的语法错误,谢谢!

saavedroUID: 2423190

The editor concludes that the town council should also(also???表达应该继续使用EZ啊@！@！) employ EZ to collect trash. To support it, the editor provides much evidence that EZ collect trash twice a week but ABC collects only once. What is more, EZ has 20 trucks and provides some exceptional service. And then, the editor cites a survey that 80 percent of respondents to agree with（这里用的不对，表达80%的人同意EZ的表现用不定式好像不太好，直接说agreed with 如果一定要用不定式，后面最好加上比较结构等做继续说明或者限定要不感觉话好像没有说完似的) EZ's performance. However, the argument suffers from many reasoning problems.

Firstly, the editor fails to assume that EZ collecting trash twice a week is better than ABC doing once a week.   Because people more likely concern about working quality but not work quantity.（这里要是用比较级 rather than来表达 but 效果会更好） It is perhaps（这是什么用法？？？）直接perhaps that(去掉that) EZ do not(doesn't) do the work so clean that it has done(has to 不得不用两次才能打扫好！考虑用这个吧 后面的结构也要随之改变才好) the work twice a week to keep clean. （whereas,用一句话表达就行了 没必要再开一句话吧 呵呵 这样有长句的味道)But ABC just doing it once a week is enough. Without comparing the working effect （between EZ and ABC), the editor could not draw a conclusion that EZ is better than ABC( on effectiveness of trash collection).

Secondly, the editor is based on an incomplete contrast, because we do not know how many trucks do(去掉do 用that) ABC have（has possessed) and whether ABC does provide exceptional service. It is possible that there are more trucks in the ABC than EZ. It is also possible that more services are provided by ABC than EZ. Without providing the information to contrast, the argument is unwarranted.

Thirdly, the survey which the editor cites suffers several statistical problems because we do not know the study sample are sufficient in size and representative of the over all group of people whose trash were EZ collected. Even though the respondents are representative, survey are also not reasonable+ to draw any reliable conclusion for tendentious respondents who are more likely to participate in the survey and( ,then) respond the survey content(content 用词不精确，可以用 result of survey 调查的结果  你说的是调查内容).(这句话说的很好@@！！） Even though the survey's respondent are not tendentious, it do not(???????? it is not necessarily indicate...) indicate that EZ's performance is better than ABC for respondent just answering that they are satisfied with EZ's performance. ( ,while 删除 Perhaps)Perhaps they also satisfied with ABC’s performance.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing for insufficient evidence and incomplete contrast. To support it, the editor should provide more evidence that collecting trash twice a week is better than doing once a week(谁去做一个星期或者两个星期？？）) and 20 trucks will benefit（will be benifical) for the city. To better assess the argument I also need more information about the details of survey’s respondents.  


感觉LZ问题比较严重的是写作文章的风格和北美范文截然不同，另外语法问题似乎也颇为严重，尽管本人语法也不大好，不过感觉读你的文章我真的很不适应，建议楼主还是多看北美范文去模仿它吧。

sheldenUID: 2338299

The editor concludes that the town council should also是ALSO吗？ 题目的意思是雇佣EZ而不是ABC employ EZ to collect trash. To support it, the editor provides much改成some 吧 evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC collects only once. What is more, EZ has 20 trucks and provides some exceptional service又订了几俩车 并不是提供其他服务. And then, the editor cites a survey that 80 percent of respondents to agree（satisfy） with EZ's performance. However, the argument suffers from many reasoning problems.


Firstly, the editor fails to assume that EZ collecting trash twice a week is better than ABC doing once a week.   Because people more likely concern about working quality but not work quantity. It is perhaps that EZ does not do the work so clean that it has done the work twice a week to keep clean. But ABC just doing it once a week is enough. Without comparing the working effect, the editor could not draw a conclusion that EZ is better than ABC.


Secondly, the editor is based on an incomplete contrast, because we do not know how many trucks does ABC have and whether ABC does provide exceptional service题目意思理解错误. It is possible that there are more trucks in the ABC than EZ. It is also possible that more services are provided by ABC than EZ. Without providing the information to be contrasted, the argument is unwarranted.


Thirdly, the survey which the editor cites suffers several statistical problems because we do not know the study sample are sufficient in size and representative of the over all groups of people whose trash EZ collects. Even though the respondents are representative, survey are also not reasonable for tendentious respondents who are more likely to participate in the survey and respond the survey content. Even though the survey's respondents are not tendentious, it does not indicate that EZ's performance is better than ABC for respondents just answering that they are satisfied with EZ's performance. Perhaps they also satisfied with ABC’s performance.
这段不错


To sum up, the argument is not convincing for insufficient evidence and incomplete contrast. To support it, the editor should provide more evidence that collecting trash twice a week is better than doing once a week and 20 trucks will benefit for the city. To better assess the argument I also need more information about the details of survey’s respondents.  

题意理解错误是很不应该的  也是很致命的  千万要避免  关于是否加S的小错有点多

加油

lovemxfUID: 2335206

谢谢了