argument17[Jet]

huangli711UID: 2451421

The writer of this letter above is trying to persuade the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper to support his opinion—Walnut Grove’s town council should still advocate EZ Disposal for trash collection services in Walnut Grove like last ten years, not the ABC Waste. To support his expression, the writer gave three reasons: EZ collects trash twice a week instead of once like ABC; EZ has ordered additional trucks; 80 percent of respondents of last year’s town survey showed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ. Unfortunately, the writer neglected three logic reasons behind the appearance. Thus his conclusion would become gray when take these factors into consideration.

The first logic mistake the writer took is he had not identify what is the level how the two companies collect trash. If the EZ Disposal just take the rubbish from every community twice per week, and leave them in front of door other days, but the ABC collect every day to a place around the community, and at the end of the week, appropriate truck will come and take away all of them, town council of course would choose the ABC company, whose service is better even if ABC raised its monthly fee as the EZ did, not to say it did nothing in the price. Because the quality of service, at most of time, is the first factor one would thought about, when the first glance at the same price production. From this view, sending this letter could be trade as a an arbitrary decision, at least a careless conclusion.

Enhancing his conclusion, the letter writer expressed added to the ordered 20 trucks as ABC the EZ Disposal has more trucks, in his opinion, these more trucks means EZ could serve better, based on same speed the workers work and the same type of machines. But in fact, the letter obviously is lack of this evidence to prove that. If the ABC has more effective methods and more faster drivers and workers, even every truck could contain almost twice of how much the EZ’s truck could, what is the matter about the additional traffic, even if the number of trucks from EZ is double of that of ABC. Only the number of trucks could not persuade one that its service quality unless the true volume of all one company’s trucks. So the failure of ignoring each truck’s capacity makes the decision is beyond of logical and the out of reasonable.

As the writer mentioned in the letter, town survey last year showed 80 percent located are satisfied with the service of EZ, and he trade this as a bargaining chip. However, the fact is EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, and for ten years most people had been serviced by EZ, without any compare with any other company, as an old saying that, no better without contrast.80 percent of inhabitant might be loyal fans of EZ. So this reason is far beyond of enough to draw that conclusion.

From discussion above, we could easily conclude that the passage from letter is lack of reasonable evidence to prove the council is mistaken. To make this argument more convincible the writer should take the quality of service, the true volume of all trucks and the real speed of work, and the equality of survey into consideration before he draw the decision.
分了好几段才写完，思维可能不连贯，请见谅~~


[ 本帖最后由 huangli711 于 2008-2-2 23:28 编辑 ]

ilabcUID: 2298724

The writer of this letter above is trying to persuade the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper to support his opinion—Walnut Grove’s town council should still advocate EZ Disposal for trash collection services in Walnut Grove like last ten years, not the ABC Waste. To support his expression, the writer gave three reasons: EZ collects trash twice a week instead of once like ABC; EZ has ordered additional trucks; 80 percent of respondents of last year’s town survey showed（claimed） that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ. Unfortunately, the writer neglected three logic reasons behind the appearance. Thus his conclusion would become gray when take these factors into consideration.

The first logic mistake the writer took is he had not identify what is the level how the two companies collect trash. If the EZ Disposal just take the rubbish from every community twice per week, and leave them in front of door other days, but the ABC collect every day to a place around the community, and at the end of the week, appropriate truck will come and take away all of them, town council of course would choose the ABC company, whose service is better even if ABC raised its monthly fee as the EZ did, not to say it did nothing in the price. Because the quality of service, at most of time, is the first factor one would thought about, when the first glance at the same price production. From this view, sending this letter could be trade as a an arbitrary decision, at least a careless conclusion.

Enhancing his conclusion, the letter writer expressed added to the ordered 20 trucks as ABC the EZ Disposal has more trucks, in his opinion, these more trucks means EZ could serve better, based on same speed the workers work and the same type of machines. But in fact, the letter obviously is lack of（lack of 中的lack是名词，这里用lacks）this evidence to prove that. If the ABC has more effective methods and more faster drivers and workers, even every truck could contain almost twice of how much the EZ’s truck could, what is the matter about the additional traffic, even if the number of trucks from EZ is double of that of ABC. Only the number of trucks could not persuade one that its service quality unless the true volume of all one company’s trucks.（不太理解，文中已经说了当前数量相等了,可以这样写more trucks does not equal to better service）So the failure of ignoring each truck’s capacity makes the decision is beyond of logical and the out of reasonable.

As the writer mentioned in the letter, town survey last year showed 80 percent located are satisfied with the service of EZ, and he trade this as a bargaining chip. However, the fact is EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, and for ten years most people had been serviced by EZ, without any compare with any other company, as an old saying that, no better without contrast.80 percent of inhabitant might be loyal fans of EZ. So this reason is far beyond of enough to draw that conclusion.

From discussion above, we could easily conclude that the passage from letter is lack of reasonable evidence to prove the council is mistaken. To make this argument more convincible the writer should take the quality of service, the true volume of all trucks and the real speed of work, and the equality of survey into consideration before he draw the decision.

huangli711UID: 2451421

:) 谢谢，我是想表达，没说明每辆车的容量，也就是运载能力，所以不能反映服务的质量咯，应该是没说明白把，我再回去看看，辛苦了~~