Argument17 【加州阳光】小组第三次作业 jj7710， 欢迎修改

jj7710UID: 204058

中文提纲：
1 两次有无必要
2 增加的车辆不一定用于W镇， ABC的车也不一定少于EZ
3 调查的不可信
4 提价造成的影响必须考虑

正文：
In the letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper, the author recommends that Walnut Grove town council should not advocate switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. The recommendation bases on three reasons:(1) EZ collects trash twice a week, and ABC collects once; (2) EZ ordered additional trucks; (3) 80 percent of respondents to a survey are satisfied with EZ. All of the three reasons seem quite plausible at first glance, however, none of them could lend credible support to the recommendation.

Firstly, whether there is a need to collect trash twice a week is still questionable. No evidence shows that people think once a week is not enough. What's more, it possible that EZ collects twice a week, but only one is in need, the other is wasting time and thus increases the spending of the company operation which leads to the increase fee charged by the EZ company.

Secondly, no fact shows that the additional trucks EZ just ordered will be put into use in Walnut Grove, and the author deliberately give no mention about the number of trucks in ABC. EZ might use the additional trucks in other areas of the serving surroundings, then it has nothing to do with the performance improvement in Walnut Grove. And, the number of ABC might outweigh that of EZ even after they ordered the 20 additional trucks, and the number of trucks used in Walnut Grove is far more than that of the EZ. The author needs to provide more information about the service and the condition of these two companies in Walnut Grove.

Thirdly, 80 percent of respondents of a survey were satisfied. What kind of the survey, and how many people responded? All these key questions are not referred to in the above letter. If the survey is just in a small group of people, even all of them responded, it is still a meaningless survey. If the survey is in a large group, and it still made no sense if only one or two people responded. Moreover, the satisfying is not credible. People in Walnut Grove have been using EZ for almost ten years, they have no other companies to make a effective comparison.

Moreover, EZ will increase its monthly fee by 25%. The fee increase is also under the council's consideration. In sum, if the author want to persuade the council that money is worth, a valid survey about the dweller's contentment of EZ,  an exact comparison between the effectiveness, the performance and the organizing of the two companies are all needed.

[ 本帖最后由 11yaoyao 于 2006-6-17 16:14 编辑 ]

benniUID: 2166321

In the letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper, the author recommends that Walnut Grove town council should not advocate switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. The recommendation bases on three reasons：（1） EZ collects trash twice a week, and ABC collects once; (2) EZ ordered additional trucks; (3) 80 percent of respondents to a survey are satisfied with EZ. All of the three reasons seem quite plausible at first glance, however, none of them could lend credible support to the recommendation.

Firstly, whether there is a(去掉) need to collect trash twice a week is still questionable. No evidence shows that people (living in W) think (that) once a week is not enough(once a week 不能作主语吧？). What's more, it possible that EZ collects twice a week, but only one is in need,（少连词） the other is wasting time and thus increases the spending of the company operation which leads to the increase fee charged by the EZ company.

Secondly, no fact shows that the additional trucks EZ just ordered will be put into use in Walnut Grove, and the author deliberately give（gives） no mention about (does not mention是不是好点？mention作名词不太常见) the number of trucks in ABC. EZ might use the additional trucks in other areas of the serving surroundings, then it has nothing to do with the performance improvement in Walnut Grove. And, the number of ABC (the number of trucks of ABC,不是ABC的数量) might outweigh that of EZ even after they ordered the 20 additional trucks, (没明白，题目不是说他们的卡车数是一样的么？) and the number of trucks used in Walnut Grove is far more than that of the EZ. The author needs to provide more information about the service and the condition of these two companies in Walnut Grove.

Thirdly, 80 percent of respondents of a survey were satisfied. What kind of the survey, and how many people responded? All these（these似乎指代三者及以上，两个问题用all these有点牵强，可以直接用both） key questions are not referred to(去掉) in the above letter. If the survey is just in （is just conducted in）a small group of people, even all of them responded(?respond), it is still a meaningless survey. If the survey is in a large group, and it still made no sense if only one or two people responded.(这句话有问题，题目已经说了有80%的人回答，因此如果是large group，就意味着不会只有一两个人回答) Moreover, the satisfying is not credible. People in Walnut Grove have been using EZ for almost ten years, they have no other companies to make a（an） effective comparison.

Moreover(一般最后一个论证段不用moreover，可用finally), EZ will increase its monthly fee by 25%. The fee increase is also under the council's consideration. In sum, if the author want(wants) to persuade the council that money is worth(表意不清，啥叫钱是值得, the extra expenditure is worth), a valid survey about the dweller's contentment of EZ,  an exact comparison between the effectiveness, the performance and the organizing of the two companies are all needed.

建议jj还是把结论段单写一段，不要和最后一个理由混在一起。