argument 17 FLY AW 小组第四次作业

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

In this letter, the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove town continue to contract with EZ Disposal for trash collection, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation, the editorial lists several comparison regarding quantitative between EZ and ABC, which leads a role of a robust competitor, establishing a specious causal relationship. Besides, the editorial cites a survey conducted recently to indicate the public contents with EZ. However, the efforts made by the author, though seemingly strong, contribute little to the ultimate conclusion.
In the first place, the arguer establishes a causal relationship between the times of collecting trash and the effects brought about correspondingly, neglecting significant differences in efficiency between the two companies. Perhaps collecting trash once a week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Whereas, working efficiency of EZ may be not so high as that of ABC, as a result, more collections would be needed per week.
Another similar flaw made by the arguer is the unsounded causal relationship between the amount of trucks and the quality of service. Since more trucks provides no evidence that better service would be provided. Maybe the additional trucks ordered recently would be used in other towns instead of Walnut Grove town. Or the increasing amount of trucks is just due to newly developed services, which has little connection with trash collection.
In the third place, the editorial unfairly judges that EZ could provide better service only though a recently- conducted survey, lacking several pieces of specific information. Thus, the speaker cannot convince us the validity of the survey. First of all, the author fails to assure that respondents to the survey are representative of the overall population of the people those trash EZ collects. Secondly, what about the alternative choices available in the questionnaire? Perhaps the questionnaire has been designed to mislead the interviewees. Thirdly, to be fair enough, the survey should base on the assumption that persons in the town are equally familiar with both of EZ and ABC, which contradicts the reality, since the town has been using EZ for nearly 10 years.
Last but not the least, the arguer does not explain the reason why the price of trash collection of EZ would be increased. Is the newly-decided price reasonable enough? Maybe it is just the contract signed between the town and EZ has made EZ free from worries about competition. Thus, a more fierce competition should be urged in order to keep the market vivid and lower the price to the level that both the government and citizens in the town could accept.
In sum, the author’s recommendation is unpersuasive. To bolster it, the author should also compare the services provided by the two companies in view of more respects, such as the technology used in trash collection and the credit in addition to the cited data which has little relation to the quality of the service. Moreover, the reason why EZ would raise the price should be investigated. Whether the citizens and the government will accept the higher price should also be taken into consideration.

exp03UID: 2158827

In this letter, the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove town continue to contract（continue doing something） with EZ Disposal for trash collection, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation, the editorial lists several comparison regarding quantitative between EZ and ABC, which (who？) leads a role of a robust competitor, establishing a specious causal relationship. Besides, the editorial cites a survey conducted recently to indicate the public contents with EZ. However, the efforts made by the author, though seemingly strong, contribute little to the ultimate conclusion.
对于这种模版性的东东，没有必要在一段里对argument这个词换三种说法吧
In the first place, the arguer establishes a causal relationship between the times of collecting trash and the effects brought about correspondingly, neglecting significant differences in efficiency between the two companies. Perhaps collecting trash once a week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Whereas, working efficiency of EZ may be not so high as that of ABC, as a result, more collections would be needed per week.
Another similar flaw made by the arguer is the unsounded causal relationship between the amount of trucks and the quality of service. Since more trucks provides no evidence that better service would be provided. Maybe the additional trucks ordered recently would be used in other towns instead of Walnut Grove town. Or the increasing amount of trucks is just due to newly developed services, which has little connection with trash collection.
In the third place, the editorial unfairly judges that EZ could provide better service only though a recently- conducted survey, lacking several pieces of specific information. Thus, the speaker cannot convince us the validity of the survey. First of all, the author fails to assure that respondents to the survey are representative of the overall population of the people those trash EZ collects. Secondly, what about the alternative choices available in the questionnaire? Perhaps the questionnaire has been designed to mislead the interviewees. Thirdly, to be fair enough, the survey should base on the assumption that persons in the town are equally familiar with both of EZ and ABC, which contradicts the reality, since the town has been using EZ for nearly 10 years.
Last but not the least, the arguer does not explain the reason why the price of trash collection of EZ would be increased. Is the newly-decided price reasonable enough? Maybe it is just the contract signed between the town and EZ has made EZ free from worries about competition. Thus, a more fierce competition should be urged in order to keep the market vivid and lower the price to the level that both the government and citizens in the town could accept.
In sum, the author’s recommendation is unpersuasive. To bolster it, the author should also compare the services provided by the two companies in view of more respects, such as the technology used in trash collection and the credit in addition to the cited data which has little relation to the quality of the service. Moreover, the reason why EZ would raise the price should be investigated. Whether the citizens and the government will accept the higher price should also be taken into consideration.

文章的用词和句子上都下了很大功夫，尤其是前三段感觉很好。
第二段讨论没有必要收两次垃圾觉得应该紧扣原文中给的信息比如城镇的名称坚果小树林……来发挥，比如该镇的环境本来就很好之类的
第三段讨论也显得简略了些觉得可以将两家公司的设备对比起来说明EZ买车不代表有好的服务会显得更扣主题而不是单纯为反驳而反驳。
倒数第二段在说EZ涨价的原因有待讨论想法不错，值得学习。
最后一段有点长，再加上文章本身已经很长了，觉得最后写简略些更好。

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

两家公司设备的对比？能够给些提示？呵呵，我去看看你们的

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

------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.'

Before accepting the editor’s suggestion that the Walnut Grove town should go on contracting with EZ. Plausible as it seems to be,  I find this argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given. The author unduly relies on the implicit assumptions and incomplete comparison, which render his conclusion wholly ramshackle.

To begin with, the arguer establishes a causal relationship between the times of collecting trash and the effects brought about correspondingly, neglecting significant differences in efficiency between the two companies. Perhaps collecting trash once a week suffices to dispose all of the town's trash. Whereas, working efficiency of EZ may be not so high as that of ABC, as a result, more collections would be needed per week.

算了，本来想改改最早写的作业，改到这儿实在看不下去了，还不如重写～