argument17 0806G STRIVE 第五次作业

lanse17UID: 2459286

The argument is well developed but not well in logic. In the argument, the author recommends that the town council should continue to use EZ disposal (EZ) instead of ABC Waste (ABC). To support the recommendation, the author points out three aspects as follows: EZ collect trash twice a week, while ABC only once; EZ has same number trucks with ABC and has ordered additional trucks; percent of respondents in a survey agreed that they were satisfied with the performance of EZ lat year.

First of all, it is unfair to conclude solely based on collecting trash twice by EZ that the performance of EZ is better than that of ABC. It is entirely possible that EZ cannot finish collecting trash one time because their workers are not experienced and devoices are not advanced, while ABC can do well only one time. Without the results of collecting trash of two companies, the author cannot justify that what EZ do is better.

Secondly, it is also unfair to infer based on more trucks that EZ will do better that ABC. No evidence is given to demonstrate that the number of trucks is associated with better performance. Even though more trucks are useful to help collecting waste, the arguer does not provide the information about whether ABC purchases trucks. Perhaps ABC also has ordered the same number or even larger number of trucks. Besides, having more trucks is only one factor influencing the performance of two companies, how about other aspects, such as advanced devices, experienced workers. Without showing all these aspects of EZ is better than that of ABC, the arguer’s inference is unwarranted.

Last but not the least, the author fail to give enough information of the survey about whether the EZ provides exceptional service. A lot of data which is closely related with the reliability of the survey is not given. Who conduct the survey? How about the sample size and representation of the survey. It is possible that most the responders are people who advocate EZ originally. If the author cannot demonstrate the reliability of the survey, he cannot convince me to trust this survey.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide the real reason for EZ collecting trash twice a week and compare other aspects of two companies expect trucks. To better assess the recommendation, we also need to get more information about the survey and know about whether the service of EZ satisfied most residents last year.
这篇感觉写的不太顺,强超时.

honglingdangUID: 2436513

The argument is well developed but not well in logic.[好] In the argument, the author recommends that the town council should continue to use EZ disposal (EZ) instead of ABC Waste (ABC). To support the recommendation, the author points out three aspects as follows: EZ collect trash twice a week, while ABC only once; EZ has same number trucks with [as]ABC and has ordered additional trucks;[80] percent of respondents in a survey agreed that they were satisfied with the performance of EZ lat year.

First of all, it is unfair to conclude solely based on collecting trash twice by EZ that the performance of EZ is better than that of ABC.[作者没有单单根据这个就下结论，就像你在开头段里说的，他举出了三个理由呢] It is entirely possible that[好] EZ cannot finish collecting trash one time because their workers are not experienced and devoices[devices] are not advanced, while ABC can do well only one time. Without [knowing]the results of collecting trash of two companies, the author cannot justify that what EZ do is better.[chinglish, that EZ can do it better]

Secondly, it is also unfair to infer based on more trucks that EZ will do better that[than] ABC. No evidence is given to demonstrate that the number of trucks is associated with[would lead to ] better performance. Even though more trucks are useful to help collecting waste, the arguer does not provide the information about whether ABC purchases trucks. Perhaps ABC also has [has also]ordered the same number or even larger number of trucks. Besides, having more trucks is only one factor influencing the performance of two companies, how about other aspects, such as advanced devices, experienced workers. Without showing all these aspects of EZ is better than that of ABC, the arguer’s inference is unwarranted.

Last but not the least, the author fail to give enough information of the survey about whether the EZ provides exceptional service. A lot of data which is closely related with the reliability of the survey is not given.[such as] Who conduct the survey? How about the sample size and representation of the survey. It is possible that most the responders are people who advocate EZ originally. If the author cannot demonstrate the reliability of the survey, he cannot convince me to trust this survey.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide the real reason for EZ collecting trash twice a week and compare other aspects of two companies expect trucks. To better assess the recommendation, we also need to get more information about the survey and know about whether the service of EZ satisfied most residents last year.
这篇argument还是挺不错的，文章的错误基本上都指出来了，逻辑性也不错