argument17 [Jet小组] 第二次作业～～荒废了！这几天～呜呜……

leftkissUID: 2347956

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."

字数：531； 依旧米有限时～因为打字还有点问题～词汇依然是大问题～皑皑～自打第一次作业后就荒废了:( ～没有积累这期间～huhu恍惚了……不断滴看电视，小说加动画～感觉自己真是无限嘬……sigh～加油～嘛努力吧:loveliness: ！小组成员监督我吧！！！3x:)
小小ps：语法改了一小遍，原文大改一遍才有现在这点成色撒－－不能荒了可就是控制不住sigh～～

The reasoning in this argument seems to be reasonable and convincing at first glance, however, it reveals some logical and critical flaws after close scrutiny. The argument drew the conclusion that we should continue using EZ from the reasons based on three points. Firstly, EZ collects trash twice a week as well as ABC collects only once; secondary, EZ currently has the same amount tracks as ABC does, whereas EZ will have additional trucks; thirdly, a survey conducted last year showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. Thus, let me show you the fallacies of this argument suffered in details.

The threshold problem in this argument appeared in the Walnut Grove newspaper is that the arguer agreed hidden conclusion that the council select ABC rather than EZ only because the raising price of EZ. The argument never provided us adequate evidence to illustrate there were no other reasons to promote them choosing EZ. There probably other possibilities such as that ABC dispose the trash using the method of circling and making gas energy from fermenting the garbage, on the contrary, the EZ Disposal choose landfill to dispose the trash. Considering the fact mentioned above, choosing ABC may benefit more than EZ in the aspect of atmosphere in the long term. The decision is likely to make our living circumstance less pollution and more convenience. Consequently, the council chooses ABC rather than EZ. If it is the case, the arguer's basement which the argument stood seems to be collapsed.

In the second place, granted that there exist no other reasons lead to the council's decision except the raising price, however, the arguer did not give us any evidence to demonstrate the raising is appropriate. Admittedly, the additional tracks will enhance the charge of EZ, but there is no evidence proves that the additional tracks will meet the Walnut Grove town's request rather than other areas. Considering this circumstance, we have no obligation to bear the plus fees. Moreover, the arguer provides no figures to illustrate the Walnut Grove town need more than once trash collection per week. As a result, we also can conclude that the EZ providing the city the same service in the past just at 2,000 per year even with the same number tracks.

Thirdly, the survey mentioned in the argument is so vague that we cannot see any details from it. We do not know how the coverage it was, how accuracy the study was. Was it scientific? Can we draw the conclusion from it? The answers are probably not. We even cannot roll out the probability that the residents knew little about ABC because the last ten years they cooperated with EZ only. In view of the above discussion, the survey seemed to be unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is not cogent and unreliable according to its presumptuous basement as it stood. In my opinion, the argument should provide more evidences to solidify the argument even the hidden conclusion which detailed above. Furthermore, the arguer should provide more details on the survey to make it corroborate and adequate evidences to roll out all other possibilities lying in the way.

[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-2-1 17:35 编辑 ]

dreamstringUID: 2389201

The reasoning in this argument seems to be reasonable and convincing at first glance, however,(还是那个问题，这里应该在前面用句号，然后说However,...) it reveals some logical and critical flaws after close scrutiny. The argument drew the conclusion that we should continue using EZ from the reasons based on three points. Firstly, EZ collects trash twice a week as well as ABC collects only once; secondary, EZ currently has the same amount tracks as ABC does, whereas EZ will have additional trucks; thirdly, a survey conducted last year showed that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. Thus, let me show you(这里说的不好，“让我来告诉你...”很chinglish的感觉)the fallacies of this argument suffered in details.

The threshold problem in this argument appeared in the Walnut Grove newspaper is that the arguer agreed hidden conclusion that the council select(should select或者selects) ABC rather than EZ only because(because of) the raising price of EZ(不是EZ的价格涨了，是EZ所提供的服务的价格涨了). The argument never provided us adequate evidence to illustrate there were no other reasons to promote them choosing EZ. There probably(加be) other possibilities such as that(删去) ABC dispose(disposes) the trash using the method of circling and making gas energy from fermenting the garbage, on the contrary, the EZ Disposal choose landfill to dispose the trash. Considering the fact mentioned above, choosing ABC may benefit more than EZ in the aspect of atmosphere in the long term. The decision is likely to make our living circumstance less pollution and more convenience. Consequently, the council chooses(should choose要好些) ABC rather than EZ. If it is the case, the arguer's basement which the argument stood seems to be collapsed.

In the second place, granted that there exist no other reasons lead to the council's decision except the raising price, however, the arguer did not give us any evidence to demonstrate the raising is appropriate. Admittedly, the additional tracks will enhance the charge of EZ, but there is no evidence proves that the additional tracks will meet the Walnut Grove town's request rather than other areas. Considering this circumstance, we(“我”不是市里的一员，应该说是“市民们”) have no obligation to bear the plus fees. Moreover, the arguer provides no figures to illustrate the Walnut Grove town need more than once trash collection per week. As a result, we also can(can also) conclude that the EZ providing the city the same service in the past just at 2,000 per year even with the same number tracks.

Thirdly, the survey mentioned in the argument is so vague that we cannot see any details from it. We do not know how the coverage it was,(and)how accuracy the study was. Was it scientific? Can we draw the conclusion from it? The answers are probably not(not什么？试试这样说行不行：Probably,the answer is no) We even cannot(cannot even) roll out the probability that the residents knew little about ABC because the last ten years they cooperated with EZ only(觉得这句用only结尾有点欠妥). In view of the above discussion, the survey seemed to be unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is not cogent and unreliable according to its presumptuous basement as it stood. In my opinion, the argument should provide more evidences to solidify the argument even the hidden conclusion which detailed above. Furthermore, the arguer should provide more details on the survey to make it corroborate and adequate evidences(and 后面加一个动词，比如and offer more adequet evidences) to roll out all other possibilities lying in the way.

总的来说思路还是比较清楚的，我觉得你如果注意一些语言点的恰当运用，会减少很多错误的。加油：）