argument17 快考了，越来越没信心.....

Lysia21UID: 200871

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The arguer claims that the town council's advocation of switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is mistaken, further he concludes that the should continued using EZ by comparing the two. However, the argument in my opinion is unconvincing as it trends after a close scrutiny.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the frequency of collecting the trash represents the advantage of the company. However, the arguer does not mention the need of the citizens there, whether they need to collect the trash twice a week，or they think once is already enough. If the people living there think once is enough then it will be nothing but a waste of time and energy   to collect the trash. Therefore, the scant evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week cannot support the author's conclusion to go on use EZ.

What's more, the authors fails to draw to conclusion that EZ is better just due to it has ordered additional trucks. However, the author does not inform us the usage of the trucks. It is entirely possible that the additional trucks are not used to collect trash but used for some other purpose, like carrying goods or so. What's more maybe the EZ has used only a small portion of its trucks to collect the trash while ABC use all its trucks to collect. Thus, without ruling out the other possibilities, the author cannot persuade us to believe that the EZ is better.

Last but not least, although 80 percent of the responders in the survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance, there is no evidence to show that they are not satisfied with the ABC's. Maybe they even feel more satisfied with the performance of the ABC's. Moreover it is firmly possible that there are also other alternatives rather than the EZ and ABC to choose. In addition, the survey in itself is questionable, whether the respondents are representatives of the overall citizens or not would directly influence the reliability of the survey. Maybe just a few people take part in the survey and of course there responses cannot correctly represent all the people. Therefore, the survey cannot prove the argument to be convincing.

All in all, the author fails to take into account of all the possibilities hence the argument is indefensible as it stands. To make it more persuasive the author should first indicate that the citizens in the town have the demand to collect the trash twice a week, and all the EZ's trucks are used to collect the trash. In addition, the author should also provide evidence that there are no other options to choose for the citizens and the result of the survey is reliable to strengthen his argument.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-26 at 18:17 ]

翦瞳UID: 184872

选定要变色的部分，然后在颜色下拉框里选你要的颜色，然后不管它，继续改。整个完成，回复之后就变颜色了！
The arguer claims that the town council's advocation of switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is mistaken, further he concludes that the(they) should continued using EZ by comparing the two[不知道你用的对否，保险的用 after comparing with ABC, 还可以用 compared with ABC. However, the argument in my opinion is unconvincing as it trends 有人用holds, or stands or sounds after a close scrutiny.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the frequency of collecting the trash represents the advantage of the company. However, the arguer does not mention the need of the citizens there,可以去掉的 whether they need to collect the trash twice a week，or they think once is already enough. If the people living there think once is enough then it will be nothing but a waste of time and energy  to collect the trash. Therefore, the scant evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week cannot support the author's conclusion to go on use EZ.基本跟前面一个意思，跟ABC比较一下

What's more, the authors fails to draw to conclusion that EZ is better just due to it has ordered additional trucks. However, the author does not inform us the usage of the trucks 偶没有想到. It is entirely possible that the additional trucks are not used to collect trash but used for some other purpose, like carrying goods or so. What's more maybe the EZ has used only a small portion of its trucks to collect the trash while ABC use all its trucks to collect. Thus, without ruling out the other possibilities, the author cannot persuade us to believe that the EZ is better.（后面的不好，要看效率，而不是数量）

Last but not least, although 80 percent of the responders in the survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance, there is no evidence to show that they are not satisfied with the ABC's. Maybe they even feel more satisfied with the performance of the ABC's. Moreover it is firmly possible that there are also other alternatives rather than the EZ and ABC to choose 又没想到. In addition去掉, the survey in [去掉] itself is questionable, whether the respondents are representatives of the overall citizens or not would directly influence the reliability of the survey. Maybe just a few people take part in the survey and of course there responses cannot correctly represent all the people. Therefore, the survey cannot prove the argument to be convincing.

All in all, the author fails to take into account of去掉 all the possibilities hence the argument is indefensible as it stands. To make it more persuasive the author should first indicate that the citizens in the town have the demand to collect the trash twice a week, and all the EZ's trucks are used to collect the trash. In addition, the author should also provide evidence that there are no other options to choose for the citizens and the result of the survey is reliable to strengthen his argument.

结尾和前面很呼应，觉得你展开的不够，再深入探讨点会更好。

Lysia21UID: 200871

谢谢翦瞳！：）
低级错误还是很多的（刚写好贴到word里面是还要恐怖，一篇红绿~~~） ，急死我了！！

确实展开不深入，我会尽量多分析一点，向你学习！：）

29好就考了。汗~~

ps我是在word 里面盖好颜色的，怎么一贴上来就全是黑色了~~~

翦瞳UID: 184872

直接在回复主题里换颜色，就可以了！
word 的格式和他不同