argument17 垃圾那篇 6号高频练习，请指教！

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

17The 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."
因为EZ涨价；所以委员会换成ABC
EZ一个星期捡两次垃圾，ABC一次+EZ有20辆还多，ABC只有20辆+ 调查的居民中80%表示满意 所以继续用EZ
1 oversimplification不一定是因为涨价
2 捡的次数和车的数量不说明服务质量
3 selective sample
The arguer simply attributes the shift decision of the council to the prize raise of EZ Disposal, and based on the facts of pick up times and truck numbers in the fleet as well as a survey, the arguer concludes that they should stick to EZ. However, after an overall consideration of the argument, we would find both the evidence and conclusion problematic.

First of all, the speaker oversimplifies the cause of the council’s decision to shift from EZ to ABC as a 500dollars prize raise of EZ Disposal, which is quite rootless. Although the council may take the prize into consideration, however, without any evidence showing that, it is entirely possible it is actually the service quality that helps them make up their mind. ABC might keep the streets of the town much cleaner than EZ can do, or even could provide the extra services such as lawn cut and back street tidying, which the council considered superior to EZ Disposal. Before ruling out these possibilities, I can not be convinced that the prize raise is the very reason for the shift.

Secondly, the arguer cites the car numbers in the fleet as evidence to show that EZ could do better job than ABC, which may not be the case. Without mentioning whether ABC are holding the same decision as EZ to increase the truck number, we could not assume that there are more trucks in EZ’s fleet. Even if there is, it may rightfully serve as a counterexample indicating that EZ’s work is not as efficient as ABC’s, since their service quality may be at the same level or even ABC is better. However, in the absence of the evidence that could link the truck number directly to the service quality, the evidence could lend to strong support to the conclusion that people should chose EZ.

Finally, in the survey which the conclusion also relies on, the arguer fails to inform us with the detailed information concerning the sample size and most important, the sample selection procedure. There stands a good chance that people who responded to the survey are those who are more likely to satisfied with EZ’s job while the other people simply ignored to answer. This kind of selective sample could not represent the residents there in all, and consequently invalidates the survey.

To sum up, the arguer overlooks many contingencies and lacks of the reliable evidence to bolster the conclusion. In order to make the argument more convincing, a comprehensive analysis about the actual cause of the council’s decision and the service quality should be needed, and a precise data of the survey is also required.
33分钟没有检查
442字

onlyannieUID: 2207552

The arguer simply attributes the shift decision of the council to the prize raise of EZ Disposal, and based on the facts of pick up times and truck numbers in the fleet as well as a survey, the arguer concludes that they should stick to EZ. However, after an overall consideration of the argument, we would find both the evidence and conclusion problematic.

First of all, the speaker oversimplifies the cause of the council’s decision to shift from EZ to ABC as a 500dollars prize raise of EZ Disposal, which is quite rootless. [color=Red]Although[/color] the council may take the prize into consideration,[color=Red] however[/color], [color=Red](although和however放在一句里不合适，去其一)[/color]without any evidence showing that, it is entirely possible it is actually the service quality that helps them make up their mind. ABC might [color=Red]keep the streets of the town much cleaner [/color]than EZ can do(keep...cleaner貌似不太通，可以用make..cleaner), or even could provide the extra services such as lawn cut and back street tidying, which the council considered superior to EZ Disposal. Before ruling out these possibilities, I can not be convinced that the prize raise is the very reason for the shift.([color=Red]作文里cannot惯例都是连写的，不能分开写[/color])

Secondly, the arguer cites the car numbers in the fleet as evidence to show that EZ could do better job than ABC, which may not be the case. Without mentioning whether ABC are holding the same decision as EZ to increase the truck number, we could not assume that there are more trucks in EZ’s fleet. Even if there is, it may rightfully serve as a counterexample indicating that EZ’s work is not as efficient as ABC’s, since their service quality may be at the same level or even ABC is better. However, in the absence of the evidence that could link the truck number directly to the service quality, the evidence could lend [color=Red]to[/color] [color=Red](这句话本身逻辑反了，这个to也是多的，手误了吧？)[/color]strong support to the conclusion that people should chose EZ.

Finally, in the survey which the conclusion also relies on, the arguer fails to inform us with the detailed information concerning the sample size and most important, the sample selection procedure. There stands a good chance that people who responded to the survey are those who are more likely to satisfied with EZ’s job while the other people simply ignored to answer. This kind of selective sample could not represent the residents there in all, and consequently invalidates the survey[color=Red].(对于respondent的攻击更好的是同时指出其论据中百分比之下的total number 和 variation)[/color]

To sum up, the arguer overlooks many contingencies and lacks of the reliable evidence to bolster the conclusion. In order to make the argument more convincing, a comprehensive analysis about the actual cause of the council’s decision and the service quality should be needed, and a precise data of the survey is also required.

[[i] 本帖最后由 onlyannie 于 2006-8-7 11:21 编辑 [/i]]

xinxinwUID: 2144273

The arguer simply attributes the shift decision of the council to the prize raise of EZ Disposal, and based on the facts of pick up times and truck numbers in the fleet as well as a survey, the arguer concludes that they should stick to EZ. However, after an overall consideration of the argument, we would find both the evidence and conclusion problematic.

First of all, the speaker oversimplifies the cause of the council’s decision to shift from EZ to ABC as a 500dollars prize raise of EZ Disposal, which is quite rootless. Although the council may take the prize（price？） into consideration, however, without any evidence showing that, it is entirely possible it is actually the service quality that helps them make up their mind. ABC might keep the streets of the town much cleaner than EZ can do, or even could provide the extra services such as lawn cut and back street tidying, which the council considered superior to EZ Disposal. Before ruling out these possibilities, I can not be convinced that the prize raise is the very reason for the shift.这段我持保留意见。到底这个原因是作者自己推测呢，还是引用事实？从原文里面好像不是特别确定，我自己倾向于后者。另外即使这是作者自己的推断，你的攻击也不是很好。你仅仅列举了几个她因，但是这几个她因也是你自己的推测，跟作者犯了同样的毛病。呵呵

Secondly, the arguer cites the car numbers in the fleet as evidence to show that EZ could do better job than ABC, which may not be the case. Without mentioning whether ABC are holding the same decision as EZ to increase the truck number, we could not assume that there are more trucks in EZ’s fleet.这个理由我觉得太较真了 Even if there is, it may rightfully serve as a counterexample indicating that EZ’s work is not as efficient as ABC’s, since their service quality may be at the same level or even ABC is better. However, in the absence of the evidence that could link the truck number directly to the service quality, the evidence could lend to strong support to the conclusion that people should chose EZ.

Finally, in the survey which the conclusion also relies on, the arguer fails to inform us with the detailed information concerning the sample size and most important, the sample selection procedure. There stands a good chance that people who responded to the survey are those who are more likely to satisfied with EZ’s job while the other people simply ignored to answer. This kind of selective sample could not represent the residents there in all, and consequently invalidates the survey.还有一点就是satisfied是一个很主观的东东

To sum up, the arguer overlooks many contingencies and lacks of the reliable evidence to bolster the conclusion. In order to make the argument more convincing, a comprehensive analysis about the actual cause of the council’s decision and the service quality should be needed啥叫should be needed?, and a precise data of the survey is also required.

这篇题目是逻辑比较乱的一片。很难写。我觉得作者还有一个错误的假设就是他所说的这些好处，与那500刀相配。

我感觉这篇由稍许退步了呢，可能是因为限时的缘故吧。另外攻击的理由都不是特别好，特别是他因举的牵强。不知道说的对不对