Argument17 【loveaw】第二次作业

iq28UID: 2152875

鉴于偶是a第一次限时成功
看了吐下来就表有冤念鸟-_-||||

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 performance."
WORDS: 433          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-9

  In this letter the author suggests that the council of Walnut Grove should continue using EZ instead of switching to ABC regardless of the difference between the monthly fees of these two companies. To support his conclusion, the author shows that EZ collects trash twice a week and on the contrary the ABC only collects once. Also the author says the number of the tracks that belongs to EZ will be more than that belongs to ABC. Moreover he provides us a survey which says the satisfactory rate of the performance of EZ is 80 percent. At the first glance the argument seems to be reliable. However, careful scrutiny reveals that these evidence the author lists lends little support for the letter's conclusion.

  Firstly, the author wrongly infers that Walnut Grove town will benefit from one more time of trash collection provided by EZ. The reasons why EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC may be various. Perhaps the transition ability of EZ limits the amount of trash that EZ can deal with in a single collection, or perhaps it is because the high efficiency of ABC that assures only one time of collection each week is enough. In such cases the one more time of collection dose not make any sense to the Walnut Grove.

  Secondly, the fact that EZ owns more tracks than EZ does will not attribute to the choice of Walnut Grove's town council unless there's evidence that EZ tends to utilize these new tracks to serve Walnut Grove. Granted that these tracks are especially ordered for Walnut Grove the letter does not tell us that how long will it be until these additional trucks can be made use of from the order.

  Thirdly, the survey in the letter is too vague to be informative. The author fails to point out the exact process of the survey. Maybe the conductor is not a non-aligned one, or maybe the participants and respondents are unable to represent the overall population of the residents in Walnut Grove, either of the two possibilities renders the survey's result unreliable.

  In sum, the author's conclusion unfairly depends upon the assumptions that Walnut Grove will benefit from either one more time of collection or these additional trucks that merely have been ordered. Also the results of the survey are unsounded due to the lack of several indispensable information. To strengthen the conclusion we need to know whether those facts mentioned in the letter make benefits to Walnut Grove. In addition, we also need to know the conductor and the absolute number of the participants and respondents to evaluate the results of the survey.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-2-9 21:29 编辑 ]

katrinajjUID: 2242021

In this letter the author suggests that the council of Walnut Grove should continue using EZ instead of switching to ABC regardless of the difference between the monthly fees [改成different monthly fees是不是简洁点啊~_~]of these two companies. To support his conclusion, the author shows that EZ collects trash twice a week and on the contrary the ABC only collects once. Also the author says the number of the tracks that belongs to EZ will be more than that belongs to ABC. Moreover he provides us a survey which says the satisfactory rate of the performance of EZ is 80 percent. At the first glance the argument seems to be reliable. However, careful scrutiny reveals that these evidence the author lists lends little support for the letter's conclusion.

  Firstly, the author wrongly infers that Walnut Grove town will benefit from one more time of trash collection provided by EZ. The reasons why EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC may be various. Perhaps the transition ability of EZ limits the amount of trash that EZ can deal with in a single collection, or perhaps it is because the high efficiency of ABC that assures only one time of collection each week is enough.[感觉这里逻辑不是很清楚,两个Perhaps在reason那句的后面,感觉都是用来解释reason why EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC的,但是后一个提到的内容和第一个的没有独立开来,EZ一次不能处理掉所有的垃圾, 但ABC的效率高,一次就可以了,似乎合起来才是EZ要比ABC多收集一次垃圾的原因.] In such cases the one more time of collection dose not make any sense to the Walnut Grove.

  Secondly, the fact that EZ owns more tracks than EZ does will not attribute to the choice of Walnut Grove's town council unless there's evidence that EZ tends to utilize these new tracks to serve Walnut Grove. Granted that these tracks are especially ordered for Walnut Grove the letter does not tell us that how long will it[it will] be until these additional trucks can be made use of from the order.

  Thirdly, the survey in the letter is too vague to be informative. The author fails to point out the exact process of the survey. Maybe the conductor is not a non-aligned one, or maybe the participants and respondents are unable to represent the overall population of the residents in Walnut Grove, either of the two possibilities renders the survey's result unreliable.

  In sum, the author's conclusion unfairly depends upon the assumptions that Walnut Grove will benefit from either one more time of collection or these additional trucks that merely have been ordered. Also the results of the survey are unsounded due to the lack of several indispensable information. To strengthen the conclusion we need to know whether those facts mentioned in the letter make benefits to Walnut Grove. In addition, we also need to know the conductor and the absolute number of the participants and respondents to evaluate the results of the survey.

PS: 个人感觉可能是限时的原因，主题部分的内容有点单薄,并没有很深入分析~~
但是开头和结尾部分还是很完整的~~

iq28UID: 2152875

谢谢了
第二段我自己写的时候也是跟你一样的感觉
不过因为时间实在是不容多想就硬着头皮写下去鸟||||