Argument17欢迎拍砖~

kito9695UID: 209685

=====================Argument====================
【题目】
Argument17 (478words)
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."
【提纲】
1、survey的真实性和样本容量
2、增加不等于都用于收垃圾，或者是否需要这么多trucks
3、不一定需要每周收两次
4、没试过ABC是否满意，也许更满意
【正文】
By giving the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once,, and that EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks, and 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, the arguer is inclined to believe that the Walnut Grove’s town council made a wrong decision that ABC Waste is better than EZ Disposal in the argument. However, the conclusion mentioned neglecting other possible alternatives seems not so compelling, while some assumptions and evidence also prove to be unwarranted and dubious after a fully scrutiny.

First of all, the major problem with this argument is that the result of the survey lacks credibility, because there is no information indicating that the respondents of the survey are representative and therefore could not lend strong support to the arguer’s conclusion. It is the highly possible that only the ones who are satisfying with EZ Disposal took part in the survey, or perhaps the respondents are too few to represent the real meaning of the people towards EZ Disposal.

Second, though EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, the conclusion EZ Disposal is better than ABC Waste seems a little hasty for two reasons. First, does Walnut Grove's town have so much trash that it need trash collection twice a week? If not, ABC Waste is surly better than Walnut Grove's town for its cheaper price. Second, it is also possible that ABC Waste serves well that once trash collection every week is enough while EZ Disposal needs twice.
Thus, lacking more data about the total amount of the trash in Walnut Grove's town and the quality of their service, the conclusion that Walnut Grove's should still use EZ Disposal for their trash collection seems not so rational as it stands.

In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of considering all the trucks of EZ Disposal including the ordered additional trucks are used for collecting trash in the Walnut Grove’s town. It can’t be ruling out that the trucks are ordered to be used in other services, and the real number of trucks used for trash collection is less than the number of ABC Waste.

Last but not least, granted that the survey of EZ Disposal is valid, the arguer neglect an important issue that it is likely that if the ABC Waste is chose, the people in the town may has greater satisfaction.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands according to the analysis above, since it does not only leave out several key issues, but also the evidence cited in the argument lends little sport to what the arguer claims. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would also have to make a careful investigation about ABC Waste and EZ Disposal.

谢谢大家~

leedgenUID: 160823

By giving the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once,, and that EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks, and 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, the arguer is inclined to believe that the Walnut Grove’s town council made a wrong decision that ABC Waste is better than EZ Disposal in the argument. However, the conclusion mentioned neglecting other possible alternatives 这里有点啰嗦了，我觉得完全可以去掉这些红色的文字seems not so compelling, while some assumptions and evidence also prove to be unwarranted and dubious after a fully scrutiny.开头写得挺好的
First of all, the major problem with this argument is that the result of the survey lacks credibility, because there is no information indicating that the respondents of the survey are representative and therefore could not lend strong support to the arguer’s conclusion. It is the highly possible that only the ones who are satisfying with EZ Disposal took part in the survey, or perhaps the respondents are too few to represent the real meaning of the people towards EZ Disposal.

Second, though EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, the conclusion EZ Disposal is better than ABC Waste seems a little hasty(haste是名词) for two reasons. First, does Walnut Grove's town have so much trash that it need trash collection twice a week? If not, ABC Waste is surly better than Walnut Grove's town for its cheaper price. Second, it is also possible that ABC Waste serves well that once trash collection every week is enough while EZ Disposal needs twice. Thus, lacking more data about the total amount of the trash in Walnut Grove's town and the quality of their service, the conclusion that Walnut Grove's should still use EZ Disposal for their trash collection seems not so rational as it stands.

In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of considering all the trucks of EZ Disposal including the ordered additional trucks are used for collecting trash in the Walnut Grove’s town. It can’t be ruling out（ruled out） that the trucks are ordered to be used in other services, and the real number of trucks used for trash collection is less than the number of ABC Waste.

Last but not least, granted that the survey of EZ Disposal is valid, the arguer neglect(neglects) an important issue that it is likely that if the ABC Waste is chose (chosen), the people in the town may has greater satisfaction. 这里可以再展开一点
To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands according to the analysis above, since it does not only leave out several key issues, but also the evidence cited in the argument lends little sport to what the arguer claims. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would also have to make a careful investigation about ABC Waste and EZ Disposal.

写得挺不错的，字数也够多，赞一个