ARGUMENT17球拍~先谢过

appledegtUID：2600263

写的比较烂，麻烦凑合着看看 再往死里拍了，谢谢呵~
时间写不进去，愁死了

另外贴上后ms很多单词都粘一块了。查了下。。应该没问题了呃。。

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appearedin 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 trashcollection 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 shouldcontinue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects onlyonce. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-hasordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percentof respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied'with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 423
TIME: 44min
DATE: 2009-4-11 17:13:44

In this argument, the arguer concludes thatwe should continue using EZ to collects trash, which is reasoned from some unsound evidences and assumptions. Then, I will discuss them as the following.

To begin with, the arguer claims thatEZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. However, this kind of increasing cannot indicate that so many trucks will not be put in to collect trash. Even if the trucks has really changed andbe more better than before, however, whether the service of collecting trashwill also be improved is open to doubt. Moreover, despite of the improvement ofEZ service than itself before, it cannot delegate that Z will be better thanABC now. It is possible that EZ now still have not catched up with ABC, or at least in some services, which is needed by our company. Thus, we cannot draw any conclusion from this evidence.

Secondly, the reason why EZ want to raise it monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, cannot represent that they will provide a better service for us. It is possible that raising fees is just because that EZ 's cost is too high, and the past fees cannot meet deficit in its company, rather than to take a new technology to collect trash which will be conduce to our company.

Thirdly, the evidence of a response from EZ cannot demonstrate that EZ will be superior in collecting trash. Because the survey is conducted by EZ company, we cannot make sure about it authenticity.If questions in the survey have some inclination the result will have nomeaning at all. Assuming that it is ture and can reflect the real condition,however, this survey is concerning exceptional service provided by EZ. And the result of survey, certainly, cannot reflect the whole services.

Finally, we assume that all above can holdwater, but the arguer fails to consider about other companies apart from ABC.It is possible that there are some other trash collecting companies can bechosen which no matter the proper fee, good service, and other possible benefits. Thus, only considering about the two companies is not smart.

To sum up, it seems to be well-presented at first glance, but still not well-reasoned finally. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence to substantiate that EZ is really worthy tobe continuous to contract for trash collection services. Such as what kind of services will be supplied, how about the service condition, and why to raise its fee.

languoUID：2612347

怎没贴链接呢？贴到666

appledegtUID：2600263

恩 知道呵呵，我只是先占茅坑再拉屎。。ms正常人都这样额。。。
不过谢谢哦

irvine666UID：2575525

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trashcollection 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 shouldcontinue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects onlyonce. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-hasordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percentof respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied'with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 423                    TIME: 44min                DATE: 2009-4-11 17:13:44

In this argument, the arguer concludes that we should continue using EZ to collects trash, which is reasoned from some unsound evidences and assumptions. Then, I will discuss them as the following(follows).(这种开头没啥好改的...按照你的习惯继续就行)

To begin with, the arguer claims that EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. However, this kind of increasing(这是什么表达方式？) cannot indicate that so many trucks will not（前面是个cannot,后面是个will not,你是想用双重否定表强调？明显和你的意思不对。） be put in to collect trash（另外整个这句话，过于绝对了，你从何得知的所有的trucks都不是来收集垃圾的？在A中要多用用may,might之类的词）. Even if the trucks has really changed and be more better than before(1.这个让步莫名其妙，前面哪里有说过trucks没有changed? 2.语法错误一堆，has really changed and be明显不对，more better又是个啥米？than before是现在和以前对比，然而你表述现在的情况却用了完成时态... ), however,（让步是个从句，不用接转折） whether the service of collecting trash will also be improved is open to doubt. （这里拿出个分论点中心句blablabla is open to doubt以后就转moreover没论述了？那你是如何来证明is open to doubt的？）Moreover, despite of the improvement of EZ service than（句式是more...than..., more呢？） itself before, it cannot delegate（这个词不会是从金山词霸上摘的吧...意思完全不对头。给你两个表示代表意思的：represent, deputize） that Z will be better than ABC now. It is possible that EZ now still have not catched up with ABC, or at least in some services（...这个你自己改吧，基本的表述错误）, which（这个是指代什么的？） is needed by our company（怎么又变our了...）. Thus, we cannot draw any conclusion from this evidence.

Secondly（这个理由才是应该放在第一个说的吧，不管是在文章的位置，还是从逻辑结构）, the reason why EZ want to raise it monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, cannot represent that they will provide a better service for us. It is possible that raising fees is just because that EZ 's cost is too high, and the past fees cannot meet deficit in its company, rather than to take a new technology to collect trash which will be conduce to our company（前面是从句，rather than后面也得是从句，不是不定式...）.(另外这段过于简略，作为批驳全文最重要的的小前提的body段，整段话的论述就只有一个可能性并不高的possibility，这个如何能够支持你的ts句子？就跟我说你一贯是个懒虫是因为你某天睡过头了没去上课一样，有说服力么？后文也是一样的，我就不再重复这个问题了)

Thirdly, the evidence of a response from EZ cannot demonstrate that EZ will be superior in collecting trash. Because the survey is conducted by EZ company（题目里面只说了survey是EZ provide的证据，没有说是EZ组织的）, we cannot make sure about it authenticity(语法错误，自己改改).If questions in the survey have some inclination(这个词也不对), the result will have no meaning at all（这个也只能说是不足够有说服力，而不是一点价值都没有，Argument一定要避免如此绝对性的说法，因为你只是站在客观立场评判作者的建议，而不是指着作者鼻子骂娘。）. Assuming that it is ture(又一次出现指代错误，it想指代什么？) and can reflect the real condition,however, this survey is concerning exceptional service provided by EZ（连看带猜了这么多话，终于出现一句我怎么都看不懂的了...）. And the result of survey, certainly, cannot reflect the whole services（直接提出survey不能支持EZ所谓的高质量证据就行了.whole service? 事实上没有任何一个survey能够reflect the whole situation of services.）.

Finally, we assume that all above can hold water（all above?没这种指代的表述方式）, but the arguer fails to consider about other companies apart from ABC.It is possible that there are some other trash collecting companies can be chosen which no matter（这个又是啥...） the proper fee, good service, and other possible benefits. Thus, only considering about the two companies is not smart.（这一段是完全没有必要的。首先，不是arguer要选垃圾公司，而是town council要选，你把这个大前提给搞错了，arguer只是反对council的做法而已. 其次，arguer的立场仅仅是支持选用EZ，反对镇政府选用ABC，没说要用别的公司来提高improve。既然文中规定了是2选1，就不要把其他的公司扯进来. 最后，这个argument本身就是一个argument（不知道你看得懂这句话不），你需要做的，仅仅是批驳作者的观点，从而间接的证明council的合理而已，如果突然冒出个其他公司，岂不是既反对了作者，又反对了town council，那你到底是站在哪一边了?）

To sum up, it seems to be well-presented at first glance, but still not well-reasoned finally. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence to substantiate that EZ is really worthy tobe continuous to contract for trash collection services. Such as what kind of services will be supplied, how about the service condition, and why to raise its fee.（结尾不看，个人习惯）

老实说这篇文章我看起来非常吃力，你的语法功底实在是比较薄弱，太多太多的句子我只能靠猜来理解你的意思。
如果时间不多的话，我建议你抛开一切先恶补一遍语法，典型的就是代词，连词（尤其是and前后一致问题），介词还有各种从句。