argument17 [Flamy July小组]第三次作业

heapUID: 2122790

Argument17 The following appeared in the 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 2000 to 2500 a month, whereas ABC’s fee is still 2000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue suing 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.

用时：50’ 字数：427

In this letter we are told that Walnut Grove tends to continue to contract with EZ disposal, a company having collected trash for Walnut Grove for ten years, instead of switching to ABC Waste. In supporting this recommendation, the author points out some advantages of EZ. However, I find it unpersuasive to accept them in the following reasons.

In the first place, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that EZ is more efficient that ABC, or the town will benefit from that. In fact, If collecting for only once a week is plenty for disposing all the trash of the town, then the excess in frequency will not only in no sense to be regarded as one of EZ’ s advantage, but also increase the expense, most of which will be afforded by consumers.

Furthermore, the arguer’s conclusion that EZ is a better choice than ABC depends on the assumption that EZ’ s additional trucks will be used for trash collection. Yet this is open to doubt. Perhaps EZ’ s plan in ordering these trucks is to deliver other things. For example, if EZ is willing to develop its services in other areas such as transportations, more trucks are likely to be required. But these seem to be of no help in improving its services in collecting trash.

Thirdly, by relying on the (national) survey to support the conclusion the argument depends on the two assumptions that the samples are collected at random and the respondents are the representative of the overall population. In this argument, however, we are told nothing about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represented the public opinions. It is quite possible that people satisfied with EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Without eliminating this possibility, we find it hard to conclude that EZ is welcomed by all the citizens.

Finally, even assuming that citizens in town are satisfied with EZ’ s service, it is not convincing to hold the argument that EZ is better than ABC for the reason that we are not well informed with the town’s attitudes towards ABC. Perhaps the population is even more satisfied with the service of ABC.

From what has been discussed above, I draw the conclusion that the recommendation of EZ is not well supported. To persuade me the author must provide specific evidence that EZ is beneficial. Besides, more thorough investigation of the satisfaction in EZ of the town is required.

linxzUID: 2225479

In this letter we are told that一般不这么用。都说The auguer claims that Walnut Grove tends to continue to contract with EZ disposal, a company having collected trash for Walnut Grove for ten years, instead of switching to ABC Waste. In supporting this recommendation, the author points out some advantages of EZ. However, I find it unpersuasive to accept them in for?the following reasons.

In the first place, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that EZ is more efficient that ABC, or the town will benefit from that. In fact, If collecting for only once a week is plenty for disposing all the trash of the town, then the excess in frequency will not only in no sense to be regarded as one of EZ’ s advantage, but also increase the expense, most of which will be afforded by consumers.

Furthermore, the arguer’s conclusion that EZ is a better choice than ABC depends on the assumption that EZ’ s additional trucks will be used for trash collection. Yet this is open to doubt. Perhaps EZ’ s plan in ordering these trucks is to deliver other things. For example, if EZ is willing to develop its services in other areas such as transportations, more trucks are likely to be required. But these seem to be of no help in improving its services in collecting trash.这个理由比较弱，以前寄托上有人批评过

Thirdly, by relying on the (national)?? survey to support the conclusion the argument depends on the two assumptions that the samples are collected at random and the respondents are the representative of the overall population. In this argument, however, we are told nothing about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represented the public opinions. It is quite possible that people satisfied with EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Without eliminating this possibility, we find it hard to conclude that EZ is welcomed by all mostthe citizens.

Finally, even assuming that citizens in town are satisfied with EZ’ s service, it is not convincing to hold the argumentcontention that EZ is better than ABC for the reason that we are not well informed with the town’s attitudes towards ABC. Perhaps the population is even more satisfied with the service of ABC.

From what has been discussed above, I draw the conclusion that the recommendation of EZ is not well supported. To persuade me the author must provide specific evidence that EZ is beneficial. Besides, more thorough investigation of the satisfaction in EZ of the town is required.

总体而言很不错，结构清晰。
有的句子要注意变换，比如on the assumption之类
据某牛人说这个题目有个所谓最大的隐含reason就是council 选ABC不仅仅是为了钱，还可能是其他原因比如说ABC处理垃圾的方式先进云云，我个人觉得有点扯淡。你可以搜一下。