[a习作temp] argument17 fly aw习作 [复制链接]

风中尘埃
UID: 164965

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 281
注册时间: 2004-5-21
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-5-25 09:59:54 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 65       TIME: 0:38:55       DATE: 2006-5-24

提纲：1、collect 等于 more comfortable 么？
         2、more trucks 等于more effestiveness么,可能这就是他涨价的原因
         3、the survey maybe unconvincing for it did not mention the comparison between the two companys
老外280 中的提纲：
1、more qality don't means better efficiency, even worse, it may reflect the low efficience
2. the reason why they order new cars may reflect their lose
3 80% satisefactory may change if they try the new company

所以argument思路相同完全正常，但要拿六分，还得语言出彩
有一个困惑，究竟因该是先看例文还是直接先写，以后再看，对照差距。先看会不会有套路？以后遇到没看过的会不会写不出来？也搞不清楚自己的实际表达能力是否在提高？

In this seemingly constructive while maybe misleading argument, the author recommend the Walnut Grove's town to keep on hiring EZ Disposal for their efficiency even its price has raised. To justify this recommendation, the author uses basically three evidences, including the higher frequency of collecting, the newly ordered trucks and the percentage of the inhabitant's satisfaction. How ever, every one of them has its own flaws which together mind the convince of this argument.

Firstly, the author equate the frequency of trash collecting to the satisfaction of the dwellers, which is still in doubt. As everyone knows, efficient trash collecting, which is important to keep the region clean and comfortable, always depends on the environment condition. In metropolitans, where there are more dwellers while worse environment, twice a week maybe more reasonable for garbage collecting. But in a little town, this additional work which maybe the cause of higher price, is probably redundant. Since we don't have enough information about Walnut Grove, the advantage is incredible.

In the second place, the author unfairly ignores the reasons why EZ Disposal has ordered new trucks. If ABC Waste is able to dispose trash with fewer trucks, why the town has to pay for the low efficiency of the EZ? Moreover, the EZ Disposal may just use the new trucks to replace the old and out of date ones and transmit the expense to consumers. If this is true, it was reasonable to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste.

Finally, the survey mentioned as a proof may has little significance with concerning to its lacking of comparison between the two companies. Eighty percent's satisfaction may seem as a rather high score, but what if the ABC Waste could get 90 percent when it take into function? And what if the inhabitants like the service of ABC Waste more for their efficiency and good quality? Without all this evidence, the survey couldn’t convince us that EZ Disposal would offer the inhabitants more comfort.

As a conclusion, the author illustrates its recommendation insufficiently. To convince us, the author should offer more details about the town, the specific reason why EZ buy additional trucks and what the comparison between the two companies is.