argument17(sally 小组)

xinxinzi0719UID: 182812

ARGUMENT 17 - 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: 487          TIME:         DATE: 2006-1-31
补一下提纲
1。针对EZ每周收两次垃圾  收两次垃圾是否必要 收垃圾的次数是否和服务质量有关
2。针对新增的车  新增的车是否用于本城市的垃圾清理 也许EZ 扩大的业务范围 还有本城市是否需要新增车来收垃圾
3。针对survey  采样 和 数量方面攻击The speaker recommends that Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than change to a new company - ABC Waste for not merely concentrating on the difference between the fees. To support the recommendation, the speaker cites the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, whereas ABC only once and the EZ has booked more trucks, on contrary to nil in the order sheet of the ABC. The speaker also point out the last year's town survey saying that EZ's performance is more satisfying. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the argument actually suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the speaker assumes that the more times of collecting the trash, the better serve it is , however, he or she fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption, Perhaps the Walnut Grove is such a small town, not having so much trash as the metropolis does, that only one time per week is enough. Therefore it is a waste to pay the additional $500 for the useless one more time serve. Furthermore the argument simply equates the quality of the serve with the times of collecting the waste, which is unwarranted. It is possible that the one more time serve is just because the EZ cannot accomplish collecting all the trash completely.

In the second place, the fact that ABC has ordered more trucks does not prove that it is a good choice to the select the ABC not the EZ. The speaker fails to alternative possibilities in the analysis of performances of the two companies. Perhaps the EZ has broadened its business ranges to other cities, thus the additional trucks will not be used in the Walnut Grove. Even if the additional trucks will be used in the Walnut Grove, the argument is still questionable. Lacking more specific information about the need numbers of trucks in the trash collection of the Walnut Grove, it is impossible to access the requirement of more trucks in collecting trash.

Finally, the survey of the satisfying degree of the EZ's performance is not persuasive. For one thing, the speaker fails to mention how board the survey is. If the survey was limited to inadequate respondents, the results might only represent the particular condition. For another thing, perhaps the respondents ate all those who were satisfied with the performance of the EZ. If so, the respondents can not represent the overall group of people living in the Walnut Grove. These and many other possible facts would undermine the credibility of the survey result.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the speaker must show that need for one more time of collecting trash and the quality of the performance equates with the times of collecting trash. To better evaluate the argument, the speaker should point out that additional trucks would in fact improve the quality of the performance of EZ. Finally, more detailed and reliable surveys should be taken if choosing EZ will be a better choice than selecting ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 xinxinzi0719 于 2006-2-1 13:30 编辑 ]

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

提醒下楼上的xinxin，以后发贴注意格式，最好先把中文提纲写出来，这样也方便大家了解思路

[ 本帖最后由 sallyxindu 于 2006-2-1 00:27 编辑 ]

幽兮UID: 2119029

The speaker recommends that Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ Disposal rather than change to a new company - ABC Waste for not merely concentrating on the difference between the fees. To support the recommendation, the speaker cites the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, whereas ABC only once and the EZ has booked more trucks, on contrary to nil in the order sheet of the ABC. The speaker also point out the last year's town survey saying that EZ's performance is more satisfying. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the argument actually suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the speaker assumes that the more times of collecting the trash, the better serve it is , however, he or she fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption, Perhaps the Walnut Grove is such a small town, not having so much trash as the metropolis does, that only one time per week is enough. （我认为，这里应该以两个公司的实力为依据，而W town的需要不做为理由来考虑，你觉得呢？？？）Therefore it is a waste to pay the additional $500 for the useless one more time serve. Furthermore the argument simply equates the quality of the serve with the times of collecting the waste, which is unwarranted. It is possible that the one more time serve is just because the ABC （？？？不是EZ么）cannot accomplish collecting all the trash completely.

In the second place, the fact that ABC has ordered more trucks does not prove that it is a good choice to the select the ABC not the EZ. The speaker fails to alternative possibilities in the analysis of performances of the two companies. Perhaps the ABC has broadened its business ranges to other cities, thus the additional trucks（additional trucks是EZ的，和ABC有什么关系呀!!!） will not be used in the Walnut Grove. Even if the additional trucks will be used in the Walnut Grove, the argument is still questionable. Lacking more specific information about the need numbers of trucks in the trash collection of the Walnut Grove, it is impossible to access the requirement of more trucks in collecting trash.

Finally, the survey of the satisfying degree of the EZ's performance is not persuasive. For one thing, the speaker fails to mention how board the survey is. If the survey was limited to inadequate respondents, the results might only represent the particular condition. For another thing, perhaps the respondents ate all those who were satisfied with the performance of the EZ. If so, the respondents can not represent the overall group of people living in the Walnut Grove. These and many other possible facts would undermine the credibility of the survey result.（写的满好的）

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the speaker must show that need for one more time of collecting trash and the quality of the performance equates with the times of collecting trash. To better evaluate the argument, the speaker should point out that additional trucks would in fact improve the quality of the performance of EZ. Finally, more detailed and reliable surveys should be taken if choosing EZ will be a better choice than selecting ABC.

麻烦给我拍拍好么，谢谢哈~~~
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

xinxinzi0719UID: 182812

听从组长的建议补上了不提纲