ARGUMENT17 thrive小组第三次作业 有拍必回啊新年贴

linkccUID: 2413074

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."

1、每周两次收集垃圾不一定必要。多收25%费用也许是浪费。

2、EZ购买新车，不代表能提供更好的服务。 也许车并不都用于该市垃圾收集；ABC也没有说不购入新车。
3、调查的回应者不一定具有代表性，而且居民未必对A就不满意.
460words

In this letter the author claims that the Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support this claim, the author indicates that the times of EZ collects trash is twice a week, but the times of ABC collects only once a week; and that EZ has ordered additional 20 trucks. The author also provides a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year were satisfied with EZ's performance. However, in several respects, there is little evidence that lends credible to support for the argument.

First of all, the threshold problem is that the author unfairly concluded that EZ have better service than ABC for the reason that the collect times of EZ is twice than ABC. Nevertheless, the author fails to offer convincible evidences that it is necessary for EZ to collect trash twice a week. Perhaps, the cost of collect is a waste that attributed to the additional 20 percent charge. Lacking sufficient evidence to add weigh to the feasibility of twice collect time of EZ, the author can not expect us to take seriously the claims that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ.

Similarly, the author assumes too hastily, on the basis of ordering additional trucks, that the service of EZ will be better than ABC. Even if EZ have ordered additional 20 trucks, it does not follow that they will be used to collecting trash. It is highly possible that these trucks have other purposes. Besides, there are no analogous information and statistics that whether ABC will order additional trucks. Without in details analyzing these and other factors, the author cannot assume that EZ will have a good service of truck than ABC.

Moreover, the survey that 80 percent respondents were satisfied with EZ is unreliable. The author provides no evidence that the respondents are representative of all people in the Walnut Grove. If not focedly the investigator retakes questionaries, then many people would not respond these questionaries. In addition, the author provides nothing about the attitude of people towards ABC. Perhaps, it is true that more people have a better favor of ABC. Without better accounting for these and other scenarios, the author cannot rely on this survey to conclude that people satisfied the exceptional service of EZ.

In sum, the author fails to validate that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ. To make it logically acceptable, the author should substantiate that twice a week collecting trash of is have a better influence on the service of EZ. And that ordering additional 20 trucks will truly be used to collecting trash. Furthermore, the author need provide more accurate statistics and information about survey to rule out abovementioned possibility that will undermine the author's claims




[ 本帖最后由 linkcc 于 2008-2-6 11:33 编辑 ]

sbsUID: 2453499

In this letter the author claims that the Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support this claim, the author indicates that the times of EZ collects trash is twice a week, butwhilethe times of ABC collects only once a week;(,) and that EZ has ordered additional 20 trucks(没好好审题啊，20是原有的卡车数量，下面还有该错误就不一一指出了). The author also provides a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year were satisfied with EZ's performance. However, in several respects, there is little evidence that lends credible to support for the argument.First of all, the threshold problem is that the author unfairly concluded that EZ havehas better service than ABC for the reason that the collect times of EZ iscollects trash twice than ABC. Nevertheless, the author fails to offer convincible evidences that it is necessary for EZ to collect trash twice a week. Perhaps, the cost of collect is a waste that attributed to the additional 20 percent charge(你在考场上不会有时间去计算百分数吧，直接$500就行). Lacking sufficient evidence to add weigh to the feasibility（改成necessity比较好，这里和可行性没关系） of twice collect time of EZ, the author can not expect us to take seriously the claims that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ.Similarly, the author assumes too hastily, on the basis of ordering additional trucks, that the service of EZ will be better than ABC. Even if EZ have ordered additional 20 trucks, it does not follow that they will be used to collecting trash. It is highly possible that these trucks have other purposes.（举几个例子） Besides, there are no analogous information and statistics that whether ABC will order additional trucks. Without in details analyzing these and other factors, the author cannot assume that EZ will have a good service of truck than ABC.Moreover, the survey that 80 percent respondents were satisfied with EZ is unreliable. The author provides no evidence that the respondents are representative of all people in the Walnut Grove. If not focedly the investigator retakes questionaries, then many people would not respond these questionaries. In addition, the author provides nothing about the attitude of people towards ABC. Perhaps, it is true（it is true表示让步，应该说it is true人们对EZ满意，but人们对ABC更满意）that more people have a better favor of ABC. Without better accounting for these and other scenarios, the author cannot rely on this survey to conclude that people satisfied the exceptional service of EZ.In sum, the author fails to validate that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ. To make it logically acceptable, the author should substantiate that twice a week collecting trash of is have a better influence on the service of EZ. And that ordering additional 20 trucks will truly be used to collecting trash. Furthermore, the author need provide more accurate statistics and information about survey to rule out abovementioned possibility that will undermine the author's claims.

内容还不错，把该说的都说了，注意审题，细节还不够丰富，多举些例子，光搭架子会显得文章空洞。

sbsUID: 2453499

晕怎么成这德行了，这有doc下下去看吧。