argument17 |0806G-AW小组|第3次作业

grape^_^UID: 2192568

The arguer suggests that Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ Disposal. To support the assertion, the author points out that EZ collects wastes one more time than ABC in a week, and recently EZ has order additional trucks. There are several logical faults in the argument.

In the beginning, the arguer assumes that it is necessary to collect trash twice a week, while there is no evidence to sustain the assumption. The argument does not provide the amount of trash made every week. Perhaps, it is enough to collect garbage once a week. In that case, the Walnut Grove's town council consider that residents should not pay more 25% fee for 50% unnecessary service. Though, ABC Waste cleans garbage only once a week, it is enough for them and they cost less money to their company. Therefore, it is better to choose ABC Waste for  Walnut Grove's town.

Another flaw is that it does not mean more sufficient work to order additional trucks. First, the function of new trucks is not clear, the EZ does not claim to use them collecting trash. Given these trucks are used to collect trash, there is still no evidence suggesting that EZ will plan to use them in Walnut Grove's town, and the company may also utilize them in other regions. In addition, the arguer fails to provide the information of ABC whether they order more trucks than EZ to collect trash in Walnut Grove's town. The mere fact that EZ ordered additional trucks is not a sufficient evidence to conclude that EZ services better than ABC.

Moreover, the arguer fails to provide the reason for the increasing of EZ's fee. The EZ, in order to raise the salaries of workers, improve the fee of collecting trash. The excessive money paid does not be applied to service. We should not, if then, insist on using EZ.

Finally, there is no information mentioned wether the respondents in the survey are representative. The survey only investigates the residents in Walnut Grove's town. The respondents may not know ABC Waste, because they have used EZ for the past ten year. It dose not conclude that we should not stop using EZ.

In conclusion, the arguer inform about both EZ and ABC more detailed and comprehensive. The survey should include the respondents who used ABC. Thus, we may conclude that which company the town should choose to utilize.(396个字)

[ 本帖最后由 grape^_^ 于 2008-2-7 19:35 编辑 ]

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

The arguer suggests that Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ Disposal. To support the assertion, the author points out that EZ collects wastes one more time than ABC in a week, and recently EZ has order additional trucks. There are several logical faults in the argument.

In the beginning, the arguer assumes that it is necessary to collect trash twice a week, while there is no evidence to sustain the assumption. The argument does not provide the amount of trash made every week. Perhaps, it is enough to collect garbage once a week.(加个in that case或so看上去更连贯点） The Walnut Grove's town council consider that residents should not pay more 25% fee for 50% unnecessary service. Though, ABC Waste cleans garbage only once a week, it is enough for them and they cost less money to their company. Therefore, it is better to choose ABC Waste for our town（Walnut Grove's town ）.（这一段整体论证很好，完整，清晰）

Another flaw is that it does not mean more sufficient work to order additional trucks. First, the function of new trucks is not clear, the EZ does not claim to use them collecting trash. Given these trucks are used to collect trash, there is still no evidence suggesting that EZ will plan to use them in Walnut Grove's town, and the company may also utilize them in other regions. In addition, the arguer fails to provide the information of ABC （about）whether they order more trucks than EZ to collect trash in Walnut Grove's town. The mere fact that EZ ordered additional trucks is not（a） sufficient evidence to conclude that EZ services better than ABC.

Moreover, the arguer fails to provide the reason for the increasing of EZ's fee. The EZ, in order to raise the salaries of workers, improve（改善费用？） the fee of collecting trash. The excessive money paid does not be applied to service. We should not, if then, insist on using EZ.（此段论证不充分，没有展开）

Finally, there is no information mentioned wether the respondents in the survey are representative. The survey only investigates the residents in Walnut Grove's town. （再延伸一下说其他地方可能种种原因和WG情况不一样）The respondents may not know ABC Waste, because they have used EZ for the past ten year. It dose not conclusion（conclude） that we should not stop using EZ.
（论证不够充分，建议不如将第三个错误去掉，集中精力论证这一段）
In conclusion, the arguer inform about both EZ and ABC more detailed and comprehensive. The survey should include the respondents who used ABC. Thus, we may conclude that which company the town should choose to utilize.


A应该已经没大问题了，自己给挑了些小毛病，呵呵~   

grape^_^UID: 2192568

谢谢指点!