argument17[aero小组] 第七次作业 by liuyingbnu

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

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: 427(改后429)          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-18 21:53:26

In the argument, the arguer highly recommends that Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should continue the contract with EZ instead of employing another trash collection company. To support his claim, the following evidence are cited:(1) EZ collects trash twice a week (2) it ordered additional trucks (3) a survey about the degree of satisfaction towards EZ. Tempting as such a proposal might be, careful examination would reveal that, however, the argument is weak in reasoning with unsubstantiated evidence.

To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week is inadequate to support the assertion that EZ's service is worthwhile, especially taking the increased fee into consideration. Probably, residents in WG never demand the trash be collected twice a week. If once a week is sufficient, employing EZ could be viewed as a waste. Providing the fee charged by ABC or other company is much lower that EZ's, the assertion that EZ's service is worthwhile is groundless.

Secondly, the author assumes that EZ's service will be improved since more trucks are purchased. However the evidence so far available does not justify the assumption because the newly ordered trucks may possibly be distributed to running in another community or city. If this is the case, the increased number of trucks lends little support to author's claim.

Thirdly, the survey cited in this argument is open to doubt. We could hardly find signs of random sampling and have little information about the anticipant in the survey. Under this circumstance, how can we believe these respondents' attitudes towards EZ are representative of the whole citizens' in WG. There is great possibility that those who are dissatisfied with EZ's performance have not replied to the survey, or even have not participated in it. Further, considering that the survey is possibly conducted before EZ's announcement of enhancing fees, residents may predictably withdraw their opinions. If so, the survey amounts to nothing in lending credence to the author's recommendation.

Even assuming the residents are totally satisfied with EZ, it is quite possible that they will be as much satisfied with ABC, if not more, as EZ. Without comparing the attitudes of residents towards these two companies or other company available, the arguer's claim to maintain the contract with EZ seems to be ridiculous.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better evaluate it, the author should rely on clearer evidence that EZ can provides the most satisfying and worthwhile service among the candidates. Also, the attitudes of residents should be clarified. Otherwise, still will I suspend my credence towards it.

这篇没怎么改，搬上来了，觉得论证不够有力．

m2zhyUID: 2440721

In the argument, the arguer highly recommends that Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should continue the contract with EZ instead of employing another trash collection company. To support his claim, the following evidence are cited 1) EZ collects trash twice a week (2) it ordered additional trucks (3) a survey about the degree of satisfaction towards EZ. Tempting as such a proposal might be, careful examination would reveal that, however, the argument is weak in reasoning with unsubstantiated evidence.

To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week is inadequate to support the assertion that EZ's service is worthwhile, especially taking the increased fee into consideration. Probably, residents in WG never demand the trash be collected twice a week. If once a week is sufficient, employing EZ could be viewed as a waste. Providing the fee charged by ABC or other company is much lower that EZ's, the assertion that EZ's service is worthwhile is groundless. (本段本身的力度并不低，但作为第一个论证段就稍稍显的弱了些)

Secondly, the author assumes that EZ's service will be improved since more trucks are purchased. However the evidence so far available does not justify the assumption because the newly ordered trucks may possibly be distributed to running in another community or city. If this is the case, the increased number of trucks lends little support to author's claim. (作为第二个论证段，这段论证显的太弱了些)

Thirdly, the survey cited in this argument is open to doubt. We could hardly find signs of random sampling and have little information about the anticipant in the survey. Under this circumstance, how can we believe these respondents' attitudes towards EZ are representative of the whole citizens' in WG. There is great possibility that those who are dissatisfied with EZ's performance have not replied to the survey, or even have not participated in it. Further, considering that the survey is possibly conducted before EZ's announcement of enhancing fees, residents may predictably withdraw their opinions. If so, the survey amounts to nothing in lending credence to the author's recommendation. (这段论证的非常好，有力度，很充分。赞！)

Even assuming the residents are totally satisfied with EZ, it is quite possible that they will be as much satisfied with ABC, if not more, as EZ. Without comparing the attitudes of residents towards these two companies or other company available, the arguer's claim to maintain the contract with EZ seems to be ridiculous. (最后一个论证段，在前面论证充分的情况下点到即止，不错。)

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better evaluate it, the author should rely on clearer evidence that EZ can provides the most satisfying and worthwhile service among the candidates. Also, the attitudes of residents should be clarified. Otherwise, still will I suspend my credence towards it.

总评：
      首先，限时作文写到这个程度，可以说赞赞赞了。
      语言方面：我仔细查看全文，居然没能找出一个语法错误和用词不当的地方(汗！我的语言水平居然如此有限)。而且用词多变，比较准确，让看的人都羡慕不已了。
      内容结构方面：总体而言，论证力度不算弱，只有第二个论证段稍稍弱了些，第三个论证的非常好，很有力，第四个作为最后一个论证点力度也不算弱。但是从整体结构上，不是很协调，第二个论证段和第三个论证段论证力度反差太大，这样如果考官看前面很仔细，那么就很吃亏了。
      建议：把第一个和第二个论证段再充实一下。毕竟前两个论证段很重要阿，要入考官法眼，前面不能弱阿。我自己写这篇的时候，思路和楼主是一样的，结果发现前面论证力度不够，最后没办法居然把前两个合成一个写了，自己汗下！(我不是限时作文)





[ 本帖最后由 m2zhy 于 2008-1-21 12:09 编辑 ]

houyanchunUID: 2432949

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: 427(改后429)          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-18 21:53:26

In the argument, the arguer highly recommends that Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should continue the contract with EZ instead of employing another trash collection company. To support his claim, the following evidence are cited 1) EZ collects trash twice a week (2) it ordered additional trucks (3) a survey about the degree of satisfaction towards EZ. Tempting as such a proposal might be, careful examination would reveal that, however, the argument is weak in reasoning with unsubstantiated evidence.

To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week is inadequate to support the assertion that EZ's service is worthwhile, especially taking the increased fee into consideration. Probably, residents in WG never demand the trash be collected twice a week. If once a week is sufficient, employing EZ could be viewed as a waste. Providing the fee charged by ABC or other company is much lower that EZ's, the assertion that EZ's service is worthwhile is groundless（句式变化多样，good!）.

Secondly, the author assumes that EZ's service will be improved since more trucks are purchased. However the evidence so far available does not justify the assumption because the newly ordered trucks may possibly(possibly是否可以去掉？) be distributed to running(run) in another community or city. If this is the case, the increased number of trucks lends little support to author's claim.

Thirdly, the survey cited in this argument is open to doubt. We could hardly find signs of random sampling and have little information about the anticipant in the survey. Under this circumstance, how can we believe these respondents' attitudes towards EZ are representative of the whole citizens' in WG. There is great possibility that those who are dissatisfied with EZ's performance have not replied to the survey, or even have not participated in it. Further, considering that the survey is possibly conducted before EZ's announcement of enhancing fees, residents may predictably withdraw their opinions. If so, the survey amounts to nothing in lending credence to the author's recommendation.

Even assuming the residents are totally satisfied with EZ, it is quite possible that they will be as much satisfied with ABC, if not more, as EZ. Without comparing the attitudes of residents towards these two companies or other company available, the arguer's claim to maintain the contract with EZ seems to be ridiculous.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better evaluate it, the author should rely on clearer evidence that EZ can provides the most satisfying and worthwhile service among the candidates. Also, the attitudes of residents should be clarified. Otherwise, still will I suspend my credence towards it.

觉得楼主写的已经很出色了，并且是限时写作呀。赞一下。结构很清楚，明了，用词和句式变化多样。加油。