argument17 (Gstrive) 求猛拍

miao96UID: 2360053

• argument17
  

The author argued that the Walnut Goven town should continue using EZ Disposal based on the following three facts: EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC and ordered additional trucks. Also the author used a dubious survey of people's satisfaction with the EZ. I am dubious about whether the three facts actually substantiate the author's assertion.

Firstly, collecting trash more frequently is not equal to the quality of service and the efficiency of the company. It is possible that the EZ collects mainly the trash of the factory while the ABC collects the rubbish disposed by the citizen. The quantity of industrious disposal is far more than the habitant's rubbish so that the EZ collects more frequently than ABC. In addition, it is also possible that the efficiency of EZ is so low that they have to collect trash more frequently than the ABC. Therefore, the fact that EZ collects trash more times during a week than the ABC can not be the reason why the town chooses EZ.

Secondly, the author mentioned that the EZ has the same number of trucks as the ABC and ordered additional trucks. The fact also cannot lend support to the author's assertion. Commonsense tells us that additional trucks means additional expenditure, such as the payment of the trucks, petroleum fees, and driver’s wage. The additional expenditure may account for the rising monthly fee of EZ. Moreover, ordering additional trucks does not equal to better service. On the contrary, the additional trucks may be due to the poor management pf the EZ and become a heavy burden to the company. If so, it will weaken the author's claim that EZ provided good service greatly.

Thirdly, the survey regarding the performance of EZ is doubtful, too. At first, the author didn't mention the number of the respondents. Perhaps the respondents are only 20 while the overall population of the town is actually 20000. It is apparently unreliable to come to any conclusion from such a survey.  In addition, I also doubt about whether the respondents were the representative of the people of the town. The author didn't inform us of the details about the selection of sample. It is possible that people who are satisfied with the service of EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. If true, the validity of the survey must be taken into consideration.

In sum, the author used two unpersuasive facts and a problematic survey to support his assertion. To strengthen the argument's persuasiveness, the author should provide more details about the survey, including the number of people participating in the survey, how the survey is conducted, the representativeness and demography of the respondents. In addition, the author should give us more information of the management and service of the EZ and ABC.

lanse17UID: 2459286

The author argued that the Walnut Goven town should continue using EZ Disposal based on the following three facts: EZ collects trash more frequently [more 做比较级形容副词,不怎么用这形式吧]than ABC and ordered additional trucks. Also the author used a dubious survey of people's satisfaction with the EZ. I am dubious [换个词,suspect是否更好]about whether the three facts actually substantiate the author's assertion.

Firstly, collecting trash more frequently is not equal to the quality of service and the efficiency of the company. It is possible that the EZ collects mainly the trash of the factory while the ABC collects the rubbish disposed by the citizen. The quantity of industrious disposal is far more than the habitant's rubbish so that the EZ collects more frequently than ABC. In addition, it is also possible that the efficiency of EZ is so low that they have to collect trash more frequently than the ABC. Therefore, the fact that EZ collects trash more times during a week than the ABC can not be the reason why the town chooses EZ.

Secondly, the author mentioned that the EZ has the same number of trucks as the ABC and ordered additional trucks. The fact also cannot lend support to the author's assertion. Commonsense tells us that additional trucks means additional expenditure, such as the payment of the trucks, petroleum fees, and driver’s wage. The additional expenditure may account for the rising monthly fee of EZ. Moreover, ordering additional trucks does not equal to better service. On the contrary, the additional trucks may be due to the poor management pf the EZ and become a heavy burden to the company. If so, it will weaken the author's claim that EZ provided good service greatly.

Thirdly, the survey regarding the performance of EZ is doubtful, too [不要更好]. At first, the author didn't mention the number of the respondents. Perhaps the respondents are only 20 while the overall population of the town is actually 20000 [直观比较好]. It is apparently unreliable to come to [换成及物动词get是否更好] any conclusion from such a survey.  In addition, I also doubt about whether the respondents were the representative of the people of the town.[意思好象与20000中的20重,人数少本来就没代表性] The author didn't inform us of the details about the selection of sample. It is possible that people who are satisfied with the service of EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. If true, the validity of the survey must be taken into consideration.

In sum, the author used two unpersuasive facts and a problematic survey to support his assertion. To strengthen the argument's persuasiveness, the author should [must]provide more details about the survey, including the number of people participating in the survey, how the survey is conducted, the representativeness and demography of the respondents. In addition, the author should give us more information of [about]he management and service of the EZ and ABC.[最好还是按顺序说吧]

hudi1986UID: 2466754

全文时态混乱，不够简洁，但总体思路清晰，结构完整。

The author argued(通常用现在时，否则后边的时态也要相应变化) that the Walnut Goven town should continue using EZ Disposal based on the following three facts: EZ collects trash more frequently （确切点也许更好）than ABC and ordered additional trucks. Also the author used a dubious survey of people's satisfaction（ｔｈｉｓ　ｓｕｒｖｅｙ　不是调查ｐｅｏｐｌｅ＇ｓ　ｓａｔｉｓｆａｃｔｉｏｎ的） with the （不用ｔｈｅ）EZ. I am dubious （最好不要在这么短的距离内重复使用）about whether the three facts actually substantiate the author's assertion.Firstly, collecting trash more（没有对应） frequently is not equal to the（） quality of service and the （）efficiency of the company.
（ｆｒｅｑｕｅｎｃｙ　ｏｆ　ｃｏｌｌｅｃｔｉｎｇ　ｔｒａｓｈ　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｅｑｕ－ａｌ　ｔｏ．．．．）
It is possible that the EZ collects mainly the trash of the factory while the ABC collects the rubbish disposed by the citizen. （观点不符合常理，不要强词夺理，从更好的方面入手）The quantity of industrious disposal is far more than the habitant's rubbish so that the EZ collects more frequently than ABC. In addition, it is also possible that the efficiency of EZ is so low that they have to collect trash more frequently than the ABC. Therefore, the fact that EZ collects trash more times during a week than the ABC can not be the reason why the town chooses E Z（结论更简短点）.Secondly, the author mentioned that (可省略)the EZ has the same number of trucks as the ABC and ordered additional trucks. The fact also cannot lend support to the author's assertion. Commonsense tells us that additional trucks means additional expenditure, such as the payment of the trucks, petroleum fees, and driver’s wage. The additional expenditure may account for the rising monthly fee of EZ.（不需要解释，已经告诉它价格涨了）Moreover, ordering additional trucks does not equal to better service. On the contrary, the additional trucks may be（may）due to the poor management pf the EZ and become a heavy burden to the company. If so, it will weaken the author's claim that EZ provided good service greatly.Thirdly, the survey regarding the performance of EZ is doubtful, too. At first, the author didn't mention the number of the respondents. Perhaps the respondents are only 20 while the overall population of the town is actually 20000. It is apparently unreliable to come to any conclusion from such a survey. In addition, I also doubt about(去掉) whether the respondents were the representative of the people of the town.(这句最关键，写在前面就好，写在这里与前文观点重复) The author didn't inform us of the details about the selection of sample. It is possible that people who are satisfied with the service of EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. If true, the validity of the survey must be taken into consideration.（语言混乱，逻辑性不强，说完观点再假设，最后下结论，否则??拢?挥刑趵硇裕?/size] In sum, the author used two unpersuasive facts and a problematic survey to support his（最好避免用人称代词，因为你不知道作者是男是女）assertion. To strengthen the argument's persuasiveness, the author should provide more details about the survey, including the number of people participating in the survey, how the survey is conducted, the representativeness and demography（概念交叉）of the respondents. In addition, the author should give us more information of the management and service of the EZ and ABC.(应该对应前文，先写关于2facts的，再写关于survey的建议)

miao96UID: 2360053

谢谢
:loveliness: :loveliness: