argument17 同主题 自己提纲 不知如何

cailiheng8583UID: 2188359

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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: 447                 DATE: 2006-3-28

高级词汇不多  凭感觉就写了 呵呵  
大家拍后一定要留下自己的连接   礼尚往来   ^_^


In this argument, the arguer cites some unconvincing evidence to draw the conclusion that Walnut Grove (WG) should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. The argument is not cogent for the following reasons.

In the first place, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week does means that it is of greater efficiency than ABC, which only collects once a week. The reason why ABC collects trash only once a week may be once a week collection is enough to get rid of the garbage because that ABC adopts trucks having lager capacitance than the trucks of EZ.

In the second place, the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks can not make sure that it will provide more service. It is of great possibility that they order additional trucks just for the purpose to extend its business in the neighbor towns. Because that the profits from only running business in one town may be too little.  

Furthermore, the fact that the monthly fee charge of EZ is $500 more than that of ABC indicates that citizens in WG will have to pay more if GW uses EZ. There is no information provided that the citizens will please to afford more for the trash collection. In addition, EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in WG for the past ten years; why not try the new one—ABC? Maybe the new one will bring with new conditions and satisfies the needs of the citizens.

Finally, even if we consider the above situation is not really the case, there is still no evidence provided that EZ will provide perfect services as the arguer claims according to a problematic survey. First, there is no evidence provided to prove that the respondents are representative to embrace all the residents in WG. Perhaps the reporters are mainly people who have some kinds of relationship with EZ. May be some of their friends are working in EZ, and thus they report that they are satisfied with the service. In addition, the respondents saying good to EZ may because that once a time EZ did some favor to them, such as waiting for them to pick the trash down the floors. Further more, even if we concede that sample in the survey is representative, the only evidence that only 80 percent of the reporters are satisfied with EZ’s service just suggests that there are still 20 percent of the people do think EZ’s service is good. If WG still choose EZ, how can we neglect the 20 percent rest?

In conclusion, the argument is no cogent because it draws out the conclusion based on unconvincing evidence and problematic deduction.

glxingUID: 2156425

In this argument, the arguer cites some unconvincing evidence to draw the conclusion that Walnut Grove (WG) should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. The argument is not cogent for the following reasons.

In the first place, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week does not means that it is of greater efficiency than ABC, which only collects once a week. The reason why ABC collects trash only once a week may be once a week collection is enough to get rid of the garbage because that ABC adopts trucks having lager capacitance than the trucks of EZ. 这一句有点过于复杂，短句化可能好些

In the second place, the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks can not make sure that it will provide more service. It is of great possibility that they order additional trucks just for the purpose to extend its business in the neighbor towns. Because that the profits from only running business in one town may be too little. 删去

Furthermore, the fact that the monthly fee charge of EZ is $500 more than that of ABC indicates that citizens in WG will have to pay more if GW uses EZ. There is no information provided that the citizens will please to afford more for the trash collection. In addition, EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in WG for the past ten years; why not try the new one—ABC? 有人批评这过于口语化Maybe the new one will bring with new conditions and satisfies the needs of the citizens.

Finally, even if we consider the above situation is not really the case, there is still no evidence provided that EZ will provide perfect services as the arguer claims according to a problematic survey. First, there is no evidence provided to prove that the respondents are representative to embrace all the residents in WG. Perhaps the reporters are mainly people who have some kinds of relationship with EZ. May be some of their friends are working in EZ, and thus they report that they are satisfied with the service. In addition, the respondents saying good to EZ may because that once a time EZ did some favor to them, such as waiting for them to pick the trash down the floors. Further more, even if we concede that sample in the survey is representative, the only evidence that only 80 percent of the reporters are satisfied with EZ’s service just suggests that there are still 20 percent of the people do think EZ’s service is good. If WG still choose EZ, how can we neglect the 20 percent rest?

In conclusion, the argument is no cogent because it draws out the conclusion based on unconvincing evidence and problematic deduction.

思路上有些不太清晰，另外我觉得倒数第二段太庞大了，呵呵，压缩一下吧
继续努力！https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1