Argument17 [米国有米]第十一次作业,重些

ernest81888UID: 2247639

TOPIC: 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 service performance."

In this analysis, the writer concludes that Walnut Grove(WG) should continue using trash collection service provided by EZ Disposal. To justify his conclusion the arguer point out that the twice per week’s collect frequency of EZ takes advantage of ABC Waste’s once per week’s. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes that EZ has currently ordered additional trucks. Furthermore, he cites the result of a last year’s survey that shows 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance. At a first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection shows that it suffering at least 3 logical flaws.

Firstly, the mere fact about the different collection frequency of the two company provided by the auger is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn form it. It is more likely possible that WG’s weekly production of trash is not greatly that ABC‘s once per week collection is enough for WG’s residents. Or it is possible that the two collection times of EZ converges one certain day that the quality of their service based on the collection frequency takes little or no priority than ABC’s. If this is the case, then the arguer’s conclusion based upon this is highly suspect.

Secondly, the arguer assumes that the additional trucks order of EZ will be a strong reason for WG to select EZ in stand of ABC. However, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps it will take 1 year or even more time for these trucks of EZ come into use for trash collection. Or perhaps actually EZ will eventually not use these trucks for trash collection that these trucks might be used in the end for other ways such as freight transportation. Also, it is possible EZ will cancel the additional order when they have authorized for WG’s trash collection some days later. Without a fully investigation of such potential possibilities, the arguer can not make me convince that his recommendation might amount to poor advice for WG town.

At last, several problems involve the statistical reliability of the survey. Firstly, the arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents are representative of all the WG residents in general. Lacking of information about this, the arguer can not make a sound argument based on it. Secondly, even if the survey is representative of the whole residents in general, but the arguer still ignore the effectiveness of the survey. A last year’s survey about the satisfactory of EZ Company’s service can not take serious. As time elapse, maybe a current poll will show most residents are not in favor of EZ like before. Moreover, the arguer provides no evidence or investigation about the satisfactory of ABC’s service, without such comparison how can we confidently prefer EZ to ABC based on their service performance?

To sum up, the argument is not well supported. To make it more logically acceptable the arguer should make a clear investigation on EZ’s working method. Besides, in order better assess to the strength of his recommendation, more evidence should be showed when EZ’s additional trucks will be in used or whether these trucks will be ordered in the end or not. It is also useful for the arguer to show a recent survey on the service performance which should contain both EZ and ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 ernest81888 于 2007-1-31 21:34 编辑 ]

janet89757UID: 2278716

takes advantage of 是利用的意思，这里LZ好像是要表达优于，还是用superior to好些吧

janet89757UID: 2278716

make me convince ？
convince me就可以了吧？

janet89757UID: 2278716

看到LZ这篇作文，让我感觉好像受到北美范文精讲里某篇例文很大的影响，这里的套路好像和那篇例文一模一样，文章单独看来是不错，没有什么语病，而且分析很透彻，只是不要被判抄袭才好，我上次考试就是得了暴低的分数，我估计是被判抄袭了

ernest81888UID: 2247639

:funk: LS说的我好怕,我一直是用北美范文的套路.........