argument17 拍了必反拍，请帖连接

lovelyspiritUID: 2189161

A threshold problem with the argument is that the author assumes EZ is more suitable for WG just because it collects trash twice in a week.  Yet it is not necessarily the case.  Perhaps although ABC collects trash only once a week, they also clean the buildings of WG, while EZ only collects the trash incompletely twice a week.  Or perhaps the communities in WG are all very clean that collecting trash once a week keeps the communities tidy enough.  Or perhaps the monthly fee of EZ is far more than that of ABC making it  more worthwhile to choose ABC although it collects trash less frequently than EZ. Any of the scenario, if true, will render the recommendation a poor suggestion for WG.

Further more, the argument rests on another assumption that the more trucks one company owns ,more superior it would be.  However, the purchase of new trucks in EZ might be the exact reason for its increase in monthly fee, while in fact , a fleet of 20 trucks is enough to fulfill the task in WG.  Or perhaps the trucks in ABC is far larger than that of EZ.  In that case, the author can not make any firm conclusion based on the purchase of new trucks of EZ.  

Even if the author can substantiate all the foregoing assumptions, the argument is still unconvincing due to the reliability of the survey.  The author provides no information about the survey.  It is entirely possible that the sample population is not large enough to be representative of the overall population of WG.  Or perhaps those respondents are all professional man and they do not know things in home very much.  Even the people in WG do feel satisfied with EZ's service, it does not necessarily indicate that EZ is better than ABC, because people in WG never has the opportunity to be serviced by ABC.

In sum, the argument contains several facets that are questionable as discussed above.  To better assess the argument, any information about the service quality of ABC compared with EZ and the condition of the use of trucks in two companies would be useful.  Also useful would be the reaction of people in other towns who both have used EZ and ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-28 00:45 编辑 ]

snowwhitehjfUID: 2151822

A threshold problem with the argument is that the author assumes EZ is more suitable for WG just because it collects trash twice in a week.  Yet it is not necessarily the case.  Perhaps although ABC collects trash only once a week, they also clean the buildings of WG, while EZ only collects the trash incompletely twice a week.  Or perhaps the communities in WG are all very clean that collecting trash once a week keeps the communities tidy enough.  Or perhaps the monthly fee of EZ is far more than that of ABC making it  more worthwhile to choose ABC although it collects trash less frequently than EZ. Any of the scenario, if true, will render the recommendation a poor suggestion for WG.

Further more, the argument rests on another assumption that the more trucks one company owns ,more superior it would be.  However, the purchase of new trucks in EZ might be the exact reason for its increase in monthly fee, while in fact , a fleet of 20 trucks is enough to fulfill the task in WG.  Or perhaps the trucks in ABC is far larger than that of EZ.  In that case, the author can not make any firm conclusion based on the purchase of new trucks of EZ.  

Even if the author can substantiate all the foregoing assumptions, the argument is still unconvincing due to the reliability of the survey.  The author provides no information about the survey.  It is entirely possible that the sample population is not large enough to be representative of the overall population of WG.  Or perhaps those respondents are all professional man and they do not know things in home very much.  Even the people in WG do feel satisfied with EZ's service, it does not necessarily indicate that EZ is better than ABC, because people in WG never has the opportunity to be serviced by ABC.

In sum, the argument contains several facets that are questionable as discussed above.  To better assess the argument, any information about the service quality of ABC compared with EZ and the condition of the use of trucks in two companies would be useful.  Also useful would be the reaction of people in other towns who both have used EZ and ABC.
说点整体的意见吧。感觉你的文章思路不上很清晰，标志性的段首连接词不明显。建议将看到的问题透彻分析。 :cool:个人意见，仅供参考。ps：加油哦;)

snowwhitehjfUID: 2151822

呵呵 我的也不怎么样 看看感觉吧https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=435498&extra=page%3D1
不知道铁的连接对不对 头一次用:rolleyes: