Argument11 第一篇A，麻烦大家指教，留链互拍

goldin2008UID: 2140085

TOPIC: ARGUMENT11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
WORDS: 710          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-26

In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that the available space in West Egg's landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. He points out that West Egg's residents have strong commitment to recycling and cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several dubious fallacies in this argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that the residents have strong commitment to recycling, the arguer's conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that the recycling habits of West Egg's residents are the factor affecting how long the landfill would be completely filled. It is entirely possible that the habits are not the significant factor responsible for how long the available space in the landfill could last, at least not the only one. The arguer fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that the number of population and demographic shifts are increasing, or that although the town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years, the aluminum and paper are only small proportion of trash and ruins and still many things, such as plastic and glass, are difficult to be recycled. Or perhaps, West Egg's residents become richer than before, and then consume more than before. If so, the total amount of the trash and ruins would increase even though the residents try their best to recycle them. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. To substantiate the assumption or justify the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and the evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the author cannot convince me that the available space in West Egg's landfill could last for considerably longer than predicted.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider the credibility of evidence. The author cites the fact and claims that the amount of material recycled would further increase next month because charges for garbage pickup will double, which is also unwarranted and questionable. It is entirely possible that the residents have recycled the trash and ruins to the best of their abilities. Even though the charges for garbage pickup will double, the amount of material recycled would not further increase next month. The author should provide adequate information to support the claim.

Finally, the survey cited is too vague to be informative. First, in evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. Lacking evidence that the respondents' reports were both truthful and meaningful, I cannot accept the result of the survey. Second, one must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to inadequate respondents, the results might only represent the particular conditions, and the generalization would not be applicable to other places. Thirdly, the argument provides no information about what percentage of residents responded to surveys; the lower the percentages, the less reliable the results of the surveys. Moreover, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. From the survey quoted in the argument, however, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to the general group. In order to establish a strong correlation between survey and conclusion, the study's sample must be representative of the overall group of people. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable, the arguer cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusions.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that many other materials except aluminum and paper are also recycled twice as they was done in the previous years. It could be further improved by providing evidence that the recycling habits of West Egg's residents is the most vital factor affecting how long the landfill would last. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 liyue24 于 2008-1-27 09:33 编辑 ]

hellousa09UID: 2427652

Inthe argument, the author draws a conclusion that the available space inWest Egg's landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted.He points out that West Egg's residents have strong commitment torecycling and cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion.However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware ofseveral dubious fallacies in this argument that should be questionedand criticized.

Asa threshold matter, even if I concede that the residents have strongcommitment to recycling, the arguer's conclusion is still merely basedon a dubious and unsound premise that the recycling habits of WestEgg's residents are the factor affecting how long the landfill would becompletely filled. （这个论点很好）It is entirely possible that the habits are not thesignificant factor responsible for how long the available space in thelandfill could last, at least not the only one. The arguer fails toconsider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternativesmight include the fact that the number of population and demographicshifts are increasing, or that although the town residents have beenrecycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previousyears, the aluminum and paper are only small proportion of trash andruins and still many things, such as plastic and glass, are difficultto be recycled. (觉得这句太长)Or perhaps, West Egg's residents become richer thanbefore, and then consume more than before. If so, the total amount ofthe trash and ruins would increase even though the residents try theirbest to recycle them. Any of these scenarios, if true, would underminethe conclusion. To substantiate the assumption or justify the claim,the arguer should provide sufficient evidence. Thus, regardless ofwhether the facts and the evidences used to support the premise areadequate, the author cannot convince me that the available space inWest Egg's landfill could last for considerably longer than predicted.

Inaddition, the arguer fails to consider the credibility of evidence. Theauthor cites the fact and claims that the amount of material recycledwould further increase next month because charges for garbage pickupwill double, which is also unwarranted and questionable. It is entirelypossible that the residents have recycled the trash and ruins to thebest of their abilities. Even though the charges for garbage pickupwill double, the amount of material recycled would not further increasenext month. The author should provide adequate information to supportthe claim.

Finally,the survey cited is too vague to be informative. First, in evaluatingthe evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey wasconducted. Lacking evidence that the respondents' reports were bothtruthful and meaningful, I cannot accept the result of the survey.Second, one must also consider how broad the survey was. If the surveywas limited to inadequate respondents, the results might only representthe particular conditions, and the generalization would not beapplicable to other places. Thirdly, the argument provides noinformation about what percentage of residents responded to surveys;the lower the percentages, the less reliable the results of thesurveys. Moreover, even if the survey was broader, one must considerwhether it was limited in certain ways. From the survey quoted in theargument, however, we find no sign of such procedures for randomsampling, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representativeenough to the general group. In order to establish a strong correlationbetween survey and conclusion, the study's sample must berepresentative of the overall group of people. In short, without betterevidence that the survey is statistically reliable, the arguer cannotrely on it to draw any firm conclusions.

Tosum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has severalflaws as discussed above. The arguer commits a fallacy of hastygeneralization. The argument could be improved by providing evidencethat many other materials except aluminum and paper are also recycledtwice as they was done in the previous years. It could be furtherimproved by providing evidence that the recycling habits of West Egg'sresidents is the most vital factor affecting how long the landfillwould last. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above,it would have been more thorough and adequate.

well done!
第一次写就这么好,值得学习.

goldin2008UID: 2140085

原帖由 hellousa09 于 2008-1-26 19:43 发表
Inthe argument, the author draws a conclusion that the available space inWest Egg's landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted.He points out that West Egg's residents have strong ...

不是说作文中需要有几句繁难长句么？显示比较有水平

zephyrqqUID: 2260290

我怎么觉得我是在看范文啊

goldin2008UID: 2140085

原帖由 zephyrqq 于 2008-1-26 23:25 发表
我怎么觉得我是在看范文啊

是感觉写得好，还是感觉copy范文？