Argument17[Aero-seven]

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."

In this argument, the author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. In order to support his recommendation, the author cites that the EZ collects trash twice a week and provides exceptional service. The author also cites EZ has ordered addition trucks to support his recommendation. However, these evidence seems credible at first sight, there are some fallacies in them.
First of all, the EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once could not support the author's recommendation. It is possible that the number of population in the town  are small so that their trash are not sufficient to be collected twice a week. If so, the service of EZ are wasting source and the increased cost of EZ is expensive for the dwellers in the town.
Secondly, the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks could not lend credible to the recommendation of author. The author fails to explain whether the additional trucks are used to deal with the trash produced by the Walnut Grove's dwellers. Furthermore, the author could not explain whether the using of additional trucks would bring convenience for the dwellers in Walnut Grove's. If the plan of ordered additional trucks is only to widen the amount of business for EZ, rather than the need of Walnut Grove, obviously, the additional trucks could not produce benefit to Walnut Grove's dweller.  
Finally, the sample of the survey should be statistically credence, however, the author fails to offer relative evidence to testify this point. The author could not demonstrate how many people have participated the survey, and fails to provide a compared object to EZ. It is possible that the total number of participator are small so that they are not sufficient to represent most of dwellers’ opinion, and other company could offer better service than EZ and the dwellers will are more satisfied with others. In addition, the author could not show which service the respondents are satisfied with between the trash collection and the exceptional services. If the respondents are enjoying the exceptional service rather than the primary service offered by EZ, the recommendation is unconvincing as it stands.
In sum, the recommendation could not be credible as it stands. In order to improve the argument, the author should provide evidence that the situation about the amount of trash in the town and the practical function of the additional trucks is. Furthermore, the author should offer more evidence to validate the credable of the survey.

lovemxfUID: 2335206

In this argument, the author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. In order to support his recommendation, the author cites that the EZ collects trash twice a week and provides exceptional service. The author also cites EZ has ordered addition trucks to support his recommendation. However, these evidence seems credible at first sight, there are some fallacies in them.First of all, the EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once could not support the author's recommendation. It is possible that the number of population in the town are（is） small so that their trash are not sufficient to be collected twice a week. If so, the service of EZ are wasting source and the increased cost of EZ is expensive for the dwellers in the town. Secondly, the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks could not lend credible to the recommendation of author. The author fails to explain whether the additional trucks are used to deal with the trash produced by the Walnut Grove's dwellers. Furthermore, the author could not explain whether the using of additional trucks would bring convenience for the dwellers in Walnut Grove's. If the plan of ordered additional trucks is only to widen the amount of business for EZ, rather than the need of Walnut Grove, obviously, the additional trucks could not produce benefit to Walnut Grove's dweller.  Finally, the sample of the survey should be statistically credence, however, （However）the author fails to offer relative evidence to testify this point. The author could not demonstrate how many people have（did） participated(participate) the survey, and fails to provide a compared object to EZ. It is possible that the total number of participator are(is) small so that they are not sufficient to represent most of dwellers’ opinion, and other company could offer better service than EZ and the dwellers will are more satisfied with others. In addition, the author could not show which service the respondents are satisfied with between the trash collection and the exceptional services. If the respondents are enjoying the exceptional service rather than the primary service offered by EZ, the recommendation is unconvincing as it stands.In sum, the recommendation could not be credible as it stands. In order to improve the argument, the author should provide evidence that the situation about the amount of trash in the town and the practical function of the additional trucks is. Furthermore, the author should offer more evidence to validate the credable(credible) of the survey.

m2zhyUID: 2440721

In this argument, the author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. In order to support his recommendation, the author cites that the EZ collects trash twice a week and provides exceptional service. The author also cites EZ has ordered addition trucks to support his recommendation. However, these evidence seems(seem替换) credible at first sight, there are some fallacies in them.

First of all, (that插入) the EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once could not support the author's recommendation. It is possible that the number of population in the town  are(is) small so that their trash are not sufficient to be collected twice a week. If so, the service of EZ are wasting source and the increased cost of EZ is expensive for the dwellers in the town.

Secondly, the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks could not lend credible(credence替换) to the recommendation of author. The author fails to explain whether the additional trucks are used to deal with the trash produced by the Walnut Grove's dwellers. Furthermore, the author could not explain whether the using of additional trucks would bring convenience for the dwellers in Walnut Grove's. If the plan of ordered additional trucks is only to widen the amount of business for EZ, rather than the need of Walnut Grove, obviously, the additional trucks could not produce benefit to Walnut Grove's dweller.  

Finally, the sample of the survey should be statistically credence(credible替换), however, the author fails to offer relative evidence to testify this point. The author could not demonstrate how many people have participated (in插入) the survey, and fails to provide a compared object to EZ. It is possible that the total number of participator are small so that they are not sufficient to represent most of dwellers’ opinion, and other company could offer better service than EZ and the dwellers will are more satisfied with others. In addition, the author could not show which service the respondents are satisfied with between the trash collection and the exceptional services. If the respondents are enjoying the exceptional service rather than the primary service offered by EZ, the recommendation is unconvincing as it stands.

In sum, the recommendation could not be credible as it stands. In order to improve the argument, the author should provide evidence that the situation about the amount of trash in the town and the practical function of the additional trucks is. Furthermore, the author should offer more evidence to validate the credable(credence替换)of the survey.

语言流畅，用词丰富。不过小错误，楼主要注意了，在文中我都指出来了。
整体而言，论证还是很不错的，比较有力度，结构把握的很不错。
建议以后注意一下，小错误太多也不好的。