argument17 废品回收

FrostmournUID: 2179616

TOPIC: ARGUMENT 17 - 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: 500          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-13

1.2次必要吗？
2.卡车多服务未必好
3.调查人群未知，对ABC看法未知

In this argument, the arguer recommends continuing use EZ Disposal, which has had the contact for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than use ABC Waste. To support this argument, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week whereas ABC collects only once a week. The arguer also notes that EZ has ordered additional trucks, implying that its quality of service will improve. Moreover, the arguer cites an investigation indicating 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. This argument suffers from a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which renders it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

In the first place, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice whereas ABC only collects once a week doesn't follow that we should continue use EZ.The arguer provides no information about how much trash we need to have collected, and weather it is necessary to collect trash twice a week. It is possible that we don't have so much trash that need to be collected twice a week--once a week is already enough. We also doubt that weather the"twice" collects more trash than"once". Perhaps the technology of EZ is poorer than ABC, so it has to collect trash twice. If this is the case, we see no need to pay more money for trash collection.

In the second place, the arguer unfoundedly assumes that EZ's service is better than ABC's, for EZ has ordered 20 additional trucks. However, this doesn’t follow that EZ will own more truck than ABC in the future, since it is entirely possible that most of EZ's trucks are obsolete and it is necessary for them to replace these trucks with new ones. Even this is not true, more trucks doesn't equivalent to better service, since we may not enjoy the service of all trucks.

In the third place, the survey that the arguer cites to support his/her claim is open to doubt. We are not given clear information about the constitution of the respondents, and also the number of people under survey remains unknown. Hence, we have good reason to doubt weather the respondents are representative of the overall population in the town. Without convincing evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that the respondents are aged ones and they know little about the fact that other company may do better than EZ, because they are already familiar with EZ.If that is the case, perhaps more people, especially young residents, were not satisfied with EZ's performance. Even if the respondents are representative enough to reflect the overall attitude in the town, we still know nothing about their opinion on ABC.Perhaps more than 90% of the residents are satisfied with ABC's performance, then we should certainly use ABC.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing for its unfounded assumptions and unpersuasive survey. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should convince us that EZ will own more trucks than ABC and we will surely benefit from that. The arguer should also prove that we need to have trash collected twice a week so more payment is necessary. Finally, the survey that the arguer cited should be representative enough to reflect the overall opinion on the issue, and we need also know how many people are satisfied with ABC's performance.

sleepybearUID: 2175257

In this argument, the arguer recommends continuing use EZ Disposal, which has had the contact for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, rather than use ABC Waste. To support this argument, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week whereas ABC collects only once a week. The arguer also notes that EZ has ordered additional trucks, implying that its quality of service will improve. Moreover, the arguer cites an investigation indicating 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. This argument suffers from a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which renders it wholly unpersuasive as it stands. (开头段超过100字就太长了哈)

In the first place, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice whereas ABC only collects once a week doesn't （不要用缩写啊）follow that we should continue use EZ. The arguer provides no information about how much trash we need to have collected, and weather（whether） it is necessary to collect trash twice a week. It is possible that we don't have so much trash that need to be collected twice a week--once a week is already enough. We also doubt that weather（whether） the "twice" collects more trash than "once"（个人意见哈，这样写好象太含糊。不过因为我以前没怎么见过这样的写法不太有发言权，LZ自己斟酌）. Perhaps the technology of EZ is poorer than ABC, so it has to collect trash twice. If this is the case, we see no need to pay more money for trash collection.这个理由很司空见惯，但是LZ把它说得很清楚了。

In the second place, the arguer unfoundedly assumes that EZ's service is better than ABC's, for EZ has ordered 20 additional trucks. However, this doesn’t （同上）follow that EZ will own more truck than ABC in the future, since it is entirely possible that most of EZ's trucks are obsolete and it is necessary for them （for them还是去掉吧，them这种代词会显得很含糊，最好少用）to replace these trucks with new ones. Even this is not true, more trucks doesn't equivalent to better service, since we may not enjoy the service of all trucks.

In the third place, the survey that the arguer cites to support his/her claim is open to doubt. We are not given clear information about the constitution of the respondents, and also the number of people under survey remains unknown. Hence, we have good reason to doubt weather（同上） the respondents are representative of the overall population in the town. Without convincing evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that the respondents are aged ones and they know little about the fact that other company may do better than EZ, because they are already familiar with EZ. If that is the case, perhaps more people, especially young residents, were not satisfied with EZ's performance.（这段有点问题吧。因为年长的和EZ熟所以他们就满意吗？这跟年纪有必然关系吗？而且熟悉不代表满意吧。也受够了他们的服务吧） Even if the respondents are representative enough to reflect the overall attitude in the town, we still know nothing about their opinion on ABC. Perhaps more than 90% of the residents are satisfied with ABC's performance, then we should certainly use ABC.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing for its unfounded assumptions and unpersuasive survey. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should convince us that EZ will own more trucks than ABC and we will surely benefit from that. The arguer should also prove that we need to have trash collected twice a week so more payment is necessary. Finally, the survey that the arguer cited should be representative enough to reflect the overall opinion on the issue, and we need also know how many people are satisfied with ABC’s performance.
LZ30分钟内能写这么多真是好牛啊！！！！
我是第一次改，可能有很多不当之处，请多多包涵。
个人觉得在结构和论证上都很好了。虽然老年人满意那个理由我不赞成。
要提醒LZ的是LZ可能因为过于匆忙而忽略了很多语言上的问题，比如拼写错误和某些用词。而且LZ经常忘记点号后面要有空格。虽然这都是细枝末节的问题，但平时练习还是力求尽善尽美吧。
相信LZ很快就要考试了吧，加油哦！