argument17 [Savior小组]第一次作业

sallyplumageUID: 2343965

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."

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut
Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。


1.效率和收集垃圾次数无关
2.卡车数量和公司的选择无关
3.调查无根据
The conclusion that the arguer advocates in this argument is that it is not advisable for Walnut Grove to switch from DZ Disposal to EZ, which should still be the best selection. To substantiate the assertion, the author compares the two disposal company from aspects of service fee, and the numbers of trucks. Also, from a survey, the author think most of the town' residents are satisfied with EZ's performance. At first glance, the arguer’s assumption seems to be accepted, while clearly exam the arguer’s assumption, we may find that it is unconvincing, vague, oversimplified, and unwarranted. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

First of all, the frequency of trash collection has no causal relationship with the effect of the service so that the arguer’s evidences are insufficient to support the conclusion. Perhaps it is true that the twice a week’s trash collection result in EZ fee’s increase, however, it is necessarily possible that EZ’s traditional work style make it drop behind ABC a long distance, so its cost is much higher. Or perhaps ABC is anew company, which has a higher efficiency of trash collection while a lower cost for a well repute. So without make a comprehensive comparison, the author cannot claim EZ is still superior to ABC.

Secondly, the arguer makes an oversimplified analogy about the number of trucks. Even assuming that two collections of trash a week have a better effect, the author fails to prove the relationship between truck numbers and the reasons of company selection. Perhaps EZ have more towns which have contract for trash collection service with it, so they need more trucks. Therefore, EZ trucks' work zone is much sparser than ABC Waste, and then the efficiency of single truck's trash collection is lower than ABC. Or perhaps the two companies have different styles of trucks, yet they have the same ability of loan, therefore the different truck numbers actually have the same effect.

In addition, even assuming that EZ is much more worthwhile to be selected than ABC because of the truck advantage, the statistic data of the survey is still doubtful. Obviously, arguer does not provide enough information on the subject of the survey. First, we have no idea of how many people are the objectives of survey, and how many of them become respondents, therefore the “80 percent of respondents” is unmeaning. If the respondents only stand for a tiny proportion of the whole group, we should not be so sure about the conclusion that a recent survey reported shows most respondents are 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. Second, the author fails to consider who conduct the survey, and it is necessarily possible that EZ conduct it for the sake of its own benefits. Third, the author cannot draw the conclusion from last year’s data. What we care about is which company is better this year, and perhaps it is this year when ABC accelerate its development, and have more advantage than EZ.

On all accounts, the conclusion, which lacks of credibility, reached in this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Regardless of who the arguer is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To strengthen the argument, we would need more information about between EZ and ABC. What’s more, the author should substantiate the causal relationship between truck numbers and the selection of company. Finally, the arguer should provide more evidence about the above mentioned possibilities and to rule out other possible causes Walnut Grove's town council still chose EZ.



[ 本帖最后由 sallyplumage 于 2008-2-27 14:46 编辑 ]

sallyplumageUID: 2343965

碎片批改

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."

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut
Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。


1.效率和收集垃圾次数无关
2.卡车数量和公司的选择无关
3.调查无根据
The conclusion that the arguer advocates in this argument is that it is not advisable for Walnut Grove to switch from DZ Disposal to EZ,(from EZ to ABC) which should still be the best selection. To substantiate the assertion, the author compares the two disposal company from aspects of service fee, and the numbers of trucks. Also, from a survey, the author thinks most of the town' residents are satisfied with EZ's performance. At first glance, the arguer’s assumption seems to be accepted, while clearly exam the arguer’s assumption, we may find that it is unconvincing, vague, oversimplified, and unwarranted. The argument contains several facets that are questionable. (在这里我有一个疑问，the service fee是town concil提出来的原因，还是the author提出来的。个人认为，由于费用高而选择EZ是个事实，而作者反驳这个观点，进而提出了一个前提，EZ的高费用是worthy的。这是我的个人看法。不知道妥当与否。)First of all, the frequency of trash collection has no causal(碰巧的，漫不经心的，休闲的) relationship with the effect of the service so that the arguer’s evidences are insufficient to support the conclusion. Perhaps it is true that the twice a week’s trash collection result in EZ fee’s increase, however, it is necessarily possible that EZ’s traditional work style make it drop behind ABC a long distance, so its cost is much higher. Or perhaps ABC is a new company, which has a higher efficiency of trash collection while a lower cost for a well repute. So without make a comprehensive comparison, the author cannot claim EZ is still superior to ABC.（你的中文提纲中，只是说了效率和垃圾收集次数的关系，而在这段，你指出了两个方面：中文提纲，以及Town concil选择ABC的“真正”原因。）
Secondly, the arguer makes an oversimplified analogy about the number of trucks. Even assuming that two collections of trash a week have a better effect, the author fails to prove the relationship between truck numbers and the reasons of company selection. Perhaps EZ have more towns which have contract for trash collection service with it, so they need more trucks. Therefore, EZ trucks' work zone is much sparser than ABC Waste, and then the efficiency of single truck's trash collection is lower than ABC. Or perhaps the two companies have different styles of trucks, yet they have the same ability of loan, therefore the different truck numbers actually have the same effect.In addition, even assuming that EZ is much more worthwhile to be selected than ABC because of the truck advantage, the statistic data of the survey is still doubtful. Obviously, arguer does not provide enough information on the subject of the survey. First, we have no idea of how many people are the objectives of survey, and how many of them become respondents, therefore the “80 percent of respondents” is unmeaning. If the respondents only stand for a tiny proportion of the whole group, we should not be so sure about the conclusion that a recent survey reported shows most respondents are 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. Second, the author fails to consider who conduct the survey, and it is necessarily possible that EZ conduct it for the sake of its own benefits. Third, the author cannot draw the conclusion from last year’s data. What we care about is which company is better this year, and perhaps it is this year when ABC accelerate its development, and have more advantage than EZ.
On all accounts, the conclusion, which lacks of credibility, reached in this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Regardless of who the arguer is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To strengthen the argument, we would need more information about between EZ and ABC. What’s more, the author should substantiate the causal relationship between truck numbers and the selection of company. Finally, the arguer should provide more evidence about the above mentioned possibilities and to rule out other possible causes Walnut Grove's town council still chose EZ.