argument17 myth小组第四次作业 phevos

phevos_xxUID: 2258006

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: 352          TIME: 0:25:00          DATE: 2006-10-28

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the letter, the author suggests that Walnut Grove's town should continue use EZ Disposal to contract for trash collection services instead of ABC Waste. To support this suggestion, the author gives us three reasons. However, in my opinion, these reasons are not so sufficient enough to indicate to author's suggestion.

First of all, the author cites that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. The times of trash collection is not the more the better. We need to know whether the trash is so much that only once can not satisfy the needs. Maybe there is not so many trash every week, so that once a week will have the same result as the twice does.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has currently ordered additional trucks is also unconvincing. We need to know whether these trucks will be used to collect trash. And what is the actual number of trucks needed to satisfy to trash collection of Walnut Grove is not mentioned.

Thirdly, the author mentions a survey to show that EZ is satisfied by the people who live in Walnut Grove. We notice that this survey is only based on the respondents. No information about the percentage of respondents in the people who receive the survey is cited. It is possible that lots of people who are not satisfied with EZ's performance do not like to respond.

Moreover, as we know that EZ has raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500. We had better to know what the reason for raising the fee is. Unless EZ could give us the convincing reason of raising the fee, we can not support the author's suggestion. It is suggested that the author should contrast the services that EZ provides this year to the last year.

In conclusion, the author's suggestion is based on three reasons which are not convincing. Lacking of the information of past years and the need of trash collection of Walnut Grove's town, we can not agree with the author’s suggestion, even more, the monthly fee of EZ the $500 higher than that of ABC.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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: 352          TIME: 0:25:00          DATE: 2006-10-28

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the letter, the author suggests that Walnut Grove's town should continue use EZ Disposal to contract for trash collection services instead of ABC Waste. To support this suggestion, the author gives us three reasons. However, in my opinion, these reasons are not so sufficient enough to indicate to author's suggestion.
首先有关本道题的解题思路, 强烈建议去看精华区那篇"ARGUE就该这么写", 虽然很多事情前提并不是我们应该攻击的目标, 但这道题的前提很有明显的问题. 不过既然都这么写了我就按照只有三个理由的攻击点来改吧.

First of all, the author cites that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. The times of trash collection is not the more the better. We need to know whether the trash is so much that only once can not satisfy the needs. Maybe there is not so many trash every week, so that once a week will have the same result as the twice does.
有些缺乏展开, 只是泛泛的说两次是否必要却没什么论据来支持, 光说作者应该怎么怎么样, 这样其实自己也跟它犯了一样的错误。万一一次的话是不是垃圾就会发霉变臭? 应该把这些问题都考虑进来, 说明为什么两次不一定必要, 一次是不是效率更高.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has currently ordered additional trucks is also unconvincing. We need to know whether these trucks will be used to collect trash. And what is the actual number of trucks needed to satisfy to trash collection of Walnut Grove is not mentioned.
这一段的感觉有点强词夺理了,难道垃圾公司买卡车除了装垃圾还有别的用途?我想主要问题是出在它没说ABC是不是也买了卡车, 这些多出来的卡车是否必要.

Thirdly, the author mentions a survey to show that EZ is satisfied by the people who live in Walnut Grove. We notice that this survey is only based on the respondents.这句话有些不清楚, 难道还有调查不是以被调查人为基础的? No information about the percentage of respondents in the people who receive the survey is cited用词不太妥, 用stated比较好,而且质疑的应该是样本的数量而不是百分比. It is possible that lots of people who are not satisfied with EZ's performance do not like to respond.还有问题没指出, ABC的情况没被用来对比, 也许EZ这个比例已经很低了, 都可以做为攻击点, 这里的反驳显得不够充分

Moreover, as we know that EZ has raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500. We had better to know what the reason for raising the fee is. Unless EZ could give us the convincing reason 要些什么理由,建议列举出来, 否则也显得缺乏说服力of raising the fee, we can not support the author's suggestion. It is suggested that the author should contrast the services that EZ provides this year to the last year.

In conclusion, the author's suggestion is based on three reasons which are not convincing. Lacking of the information of past years and the need of trash collection of Walnut Grove's town, we can not agree with the author’s suggestion, even more, the monthly fee of EZ the $500 higher than that of ABC.

总体而言在反驳过程中泛泛的推论太多, 实质性的论述就很少, 使文章缺乏力度, 也不太容易被理解, 希望在反驳的过程中多下点功夫