ARGUMENT17|0806-AW小组|第三次作业

guomin1437UID: 2411571

The arguer claims that the town council makes a mistake on advocating switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support it, the arguer points out that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week while ABC Waste only once and the former will increase the amount of trucks later. In additional, the arguer cites a survey results which reveals that the residents is more satisfied with the service of the former rubbish disposal company. The argument suffers from the several following critical flaws which render it unconvincing.

In the first place, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects trash once a week does not stand up for the argument. The arguer ignores other several factors of the contrast which would give us an external illusion that collecting trash twice a week is firmly better than once only. That ABC collecting trash once a week works more thoroughly while EZ collecting trash twice a week might misses some details in the collecting course possible-for example, ABC might wash the rubbish bins after the collecting while EZ might be short of this step. Another possibility is that the trash that the residents in this area consume is not enough excessive for collecting twice a week. Without providing information to justify the service of these two companies is similar in every aspect the arguer can not convince me that the service effectiveness of EZ is firmly better than ABC’s.

In the second place, the arguer makes an unreasoning assumption on the fact that EZ has order additional 20 trucks. As all we know, the rubbish disposal company would not service only a district. The other service area of EZ might face the situation of replacing the useless trucks thoroughly which leaves no trucks to this area. In other words, if the arguer can not justify the trucks that has ordered is just for this area explicitly, the assumption does not hold water.

Finally, the survey results that the arguer provides little evidence for the conclusion since we can not judge the survey is a valid one or not. The arguer does not provide us the number or percentage of the residents in the investigation and he also does not explain the investigating scale. Without given more details about the investigation, the survey results have little contribution to the support of the conclusion.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make argument more convincing, the arguer must provide more information on the following subjects (1) collecting trash twice a week is certainly more effective, (2) the trucks ordered by EZ would entirely service this area, (3) the survey results is carried out valid.         (447字)

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896

The arguer claims that the town council makes a mistake on advocating switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support it, the arguer points out that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week while ABC Waste only once and the former will increase the amount of trucks later. In additional, the arguer cites a survey results which reveals that the residents is more satisfied with the service of the former rubbish disposal company. The argument suffers from the several following critical flaws which render it unconvincing.

In the first place, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects trash once a week does not stand up for the argument. The arguer ignores other several factors of the contrast which would give us an external illusion that collecting trash twice a week is firmly better than once only. That ABC collecting trash once a week works more thoroughly while EZ collecting trash twice a week might misses some details in the collecting course possible-for example, ABC might wash the rubbish bins after the collecting while EZ might be short of this step. Another possibility is that the trash that the residents in this area consume is not enough excessive for collecting twice a week. Without providing information to justify the service of these two companies is similar in every aspect the arguer can not convince me that the service effectiveness of EZ is firmly better than ABC’s.

In the second place, the arguer makes an unreasoning assumption on the fact that EZ has order additional 20 trucks. As all we know, the rubbish disposal company would not service only a district. The other service area of EZ might face the situation of replacing the useless trucks thoroughly which leaves no trucks to this area. In other words, if the arguer can not justify the trucks that has ordered is just for this area explicitly, the assumption does not hold water.

Finally, the survey results that the arguer provides little evidence for the conclusion since we can not judge the survey is a valid one or not. The arguer does not provide us the number or percentage of the residents in the investigation and he also does not explain the investigating scale. Without given more details about the investigation, the survey results have little contribution to the support of the conclusion.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make argument more convincing, the arguer must provide more information on the following subjects (1) collecting trash twice a week is certainly more effective, (2) the trucks ordered by EZ would entirely service this area, (3) the survey results is carried out valid.         (447字)

文章干脆利落，语言很棒。逻辑和攻击点也很好。唯一想说的是，第三点反驳略显单薄，只用了一句话来解释你的观点，有点抽象，可以再详实的加一些解释。