[AERO小组第七次作业]Argument17

saavedroUID: 2423190

题目：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."
字数：487          用时：00:35:38          日期：2008-1-20 20:47:14
  


  In this argument, the author cites that EZ as a trash collection corporation collects trash twice a week base on which he assumes that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ rather than renewing choose ABC for affording service. Another piece of evidence presented to bolster this argument is that EZ current has bought a fleet of 20 trucks but ABC has not. Hence the author base on those evidences that mentioned above concludes that EZ is the best service of trash Collection Corporation than ABC for Walnut Grove. Closely scrutiny this argument, I find several critical fallacies in this argument as its stands.
  In the first aspect, the author unfairly assumes that afford twice of service is a fact to testify that quality and efficiency of EZ has a significant superior level than ABC's. Lacking evidence to confirm this assumption, it is entirely possible that although ABC provides only one time service, EZ has actually less effective on trash collection than ABC's. For that matter, the author overlooks the possibility that price with collection service in ABC is only $2000 that cheaper than EZ's, it is a important concept in development with Walnut Grove in a long run. In short, without considering and eliminating other possible reasons that quality and efficiency about ABC can afford, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that affording times of service can strong illustrate genuine efficiency on the two corporations.
  In the second aspect, the author overlooks the possibility that one or more other factors other than the new 20 trucks by EZ bought has serve to explain ability of ABC further than EZ's. Such factors might include specific conditions about the new 20 trucks, if this group of trucks is a poor pattern facility, it is wholly possible provides the worst service to all clients. Since this argument fails to account for this alternative explanation about quality of this new group of trucks in EZ, the author cannot make any other concrete conclusion that synthetically ability of EZ rather than ABC's.
  Finally, the author provides no evidence that the background of the survey. Lacking evidence of sufficiently representative of overall potentially aggregation, the author cannot rely on the survey to draw any reliable conclusion that satisfaction on EZ significantly rather than ABC. It is entirely possible that vast majority of participants are also performing "satisfied" with ABC, if so, the number of proponents with ABC will be far more than with EZ.
  To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence that specific on background of survey. To better reevaluate the argument, we would need more information about potentially financial plan on Walnut Grove in the future that determine which corporation is the best choice for affording trash collection service.

这篇文章写的我太赶了，这么左赶右赶还是没能在规定30分钟内写完。。。哎 这样下去真不行，必须要想想办法了！！！
估计写的也不是很好。Pay significant attention on time limited.

还请拍文的同学帮我打打分数，我想知道我现在处于什么水平？我不怕受打击，大家直说吧。




[ 本帖最后由 saavedro 于 2008-1-22 10:30 编辑 ]

sheldenUID: 2338299

In this argument, the author cites that EZ as a trash collection corporation collects trash twice a week base on which he assumes that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ rather than renewing choose ABC for affording service.建议“as a trash collection corporation”用逗号搁开，方便阅读   Another piece of evidence presented to bolster this argument is that EZ currently has bought a fleet of 20 trucks but ABC has(does) not. Hence the author base on those evidences that mentioned above 同样base on 短语用逗号搁开concludes that EZ is the best(better) service of trash Collection Corporation than ABC for Walnut Grove. Closely(close) scrutiny of this argument, I find several critical fallacies in this argument as its stands.语法错误 close scrutiny 是名词短语 不能做句子成分  改成  close scrutiny of this argument, reveals that there are several…
  In the first aspect这个用法有点奇怪 建议确认一下, the author unfairly assumes that affording twice of service is a fact to testify that quality and efficiency of EZ has a significant superior level than ABC's.这句话有语法错 而且有点CHIN 改为 the author unfairly assumes that EZ’S providing service twice a week means a higher quality and efficiency than ABC. Lacking evidence to confirm this assumption, it is entirely possible that although ABC provides only one time service (provides service once a week), EZ has actually less effective on trash collection than ABC's. For that matter, the author overlooks the possibility that price with collection service in ABC is only $2000 that is (定从) cheaper than EZ's, and it is an important concept in development with Walnut Grove in a long run. In short, without considering and eliminating other possible reasons that quality and efficiency about ABC can afford（reason后面的成分 既不是同位语又不是定语 是不是想表达 consider other evidence about the quality and efficiency offered by ABC）, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that affording times of service can strong illustrate genuine efficiency on the two corporations.
  In the second aspect, the author overlooks the possibility that one or more other factors(one or more 与other 重复) other than the new 20 trucks by EZ bought has serve to explain the (后面有后置定语多用the)ability of ABC further than EZ's能力多用higher. Such factors might include specific conditions about the new 20 trucks.If this group of trucks is a poor pattern facility, it is wholly possible to provides (provide) the worst service to all clients. Since this argument fails to account for this alternative explanation about quality of this new group of trucks in EZ, the author cannot make any other去other concrete conclusions that synthetically ability(想说综合能力吗？应该用形容词修饰名词) of EZ rather than ABC's.（rather than “而不是” 这里是说什么呢？）
  Finally, the author provides no evidence that the background of the survey (that后面要加句子 改成about). Lacking evidence of sufficiently representative of overall potentially aggregation, the author cannot rely on the survey to draw any reliable conclusions that satisfaction on EZ significantly rather than ABC.(ai~~ that 用的太随意了 记着要加句子 rather than 的意思使用不准确is better than ABC) It is entirely possible that vast majority of participants are also performing "satisfied" with ABC, if so, the number of proponents with ABC will be far more than with EZ.
  To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend a strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence that is specific on background of survey. To better reevaluate the argument, we would need more information about potentially financial plan on Walnut Grove in the(去掉) future that determines which corporation is the best choice for affording trash collection service

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

In this argument, the author cites that EZ as a trash collection corporation collects trash twice a week base on which he assumes that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ rather than renewing choose ABC for affording service.开头这句话太复杂了，不如写得更简单些。 Another piece of evidence presented to bolster this argument is that EZ currentcurrently has bought a fleet of 20 trucks but ABC has not. Hence the author basebasing on those evidences that mentioned above concludes that EZ is the best service of trash Collection Corporation than ABC for Walnut Grove. CloselyWith close scrutiny of this argument, I find several critical fallacies in this argument as its stands.
  In the first aspect, the author unfairly assumes that affordaffording twice of service is a fact to testify that quality and efficiency of EZ has a significant superior level than ABC's. Lacking evidence to confirm this assumption, it is entirely possible that although ABC provides only one time service, EZ has actually less effective on trash collection than ABC's. For that matter, the author overlooks the possibility that price with collection service in ABC is only $2000 that cheaper than EZ's这个句子有点不顺啊，后面这个比较, it is a important concept in development with Walnut Grove in a long run. In short, without considering and eliminating other possible reasons that quality and efficiency about ABC can afford, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that affording times of service can strong illustrate genuine efficiency on the two corporations.
  In the second aspect, the author overlooks the possibility that one or more other factors other than the new 20 trucks by EZ boughtbought by EZ has serve to abilityserve to ability? of ABC further than EZ's. Such factors might include specific conditions about the new 20 trucks, .ifIf this group of trucks is a poor pattern facility, it is wholly possible that EZ provides the worst service to all clients. Since this argument fails to account for this alternative explanation about quality of this new group of trucks in EZ, the author cannot make any other concrete conclusion that syntheticallysynthetical ability of EZ rather ? is higher than ABC's.
  Finally, the author provides no evidence thatof the background of the survey. Lacking evidence of sufficiently representative of overall potentially aggregation, the author cannot rely on the survey to draw any reliable conclusion that satisfaction on EZ significantly rather than ABC. It is entirely possible that vast majority of participants are also performing "satisfied" with ABC, if so, the number of proponents with ABC will be far more than with EZ.
  To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence that specific on background of survey. To better reevaluate the argument, we would need more information about potentiallypotential financial plan on Walnut Grove in the future that determine which corporation is the best choice for affording trash collection service.
问题找的不错哈~语法的小问题再注意下。句子简单的说的清楚，就不要弄得太长了，反而容易犯错误。
楼主不要担心，加快速度，再努力下，在这个基础上拿5分还是很有可能的。