Argument17 【米国有米】小组 第一次作业,请猛批

ernest81888UID: 2247639

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."

In this argument, the author concludes that WG town should continue using EZ. To support his conclusion, the author point out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABS collects only once. In addition, the author reasons that EZ has the same quantity trucks as ABC and has ordered additional trucks. Further more, he also assumes that EZ provides exceptional services.

To begin with, the argument relies on an unproven cause-and effect relationship between EZ’s twice a week trash collection and ABC’s once a week. The speaker has not ruled out other possible causes for the comparison---for example, ABC’s customer generated less trash than EZ’s, so it is likely quite enough for ABC’s once a week collection task, while the latter’s twice a week proposal is not sufficient for its customer. As it stands, the author’s solution to the problem is based upon an oversimplified analysis of the issue

Secondly, the speaker commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that truck is typical of all trash collection transportation as a group. However, this is not necessarily the case. The example cited, although EZ has the same quantity truck as ABC has, the possibility still exists that ABC might has much more other kinds of trash collection transportation like motorcycle, tricycle than EZ has. If so, then the speaker’s recommendation might amount to poor advice for WG town.

Thirdly, it is highly doubtful that the last year’s poll will indicate that EZ will achieve the same result this year as it did. The reason is questionable because everything might be changed by times, and the mere overpassed fact is insufficient to establish the claim. Example cited, this year’s poll might show only 40% satisfy with EZ’s performance. The author’s using Post.hoc assume to reach the conclusion is highly suspect

In summary, the author fails to validate the conclusion that WG town should continue using EZ. To make it logically acceptable, the author should demonstrate that EZ’s twice week collection can be enough for his customer, while ABC’s can not. In addition, the arguer would have to provide more concrete evidence, especially the information concerning about all the transportation the two companies has. Finally, the speaker is recommended to show a current survey report, which can directly reflect current EZ’s service performance, to rule out the abovementioned possibility that would undermine the author’s claim

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

In this argument, the author concludes that WG town should continue using EZ. To support his conclusion, the author point out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABS collects only once. In addition, the author reasons that EZ has the same quantity trucks as ABC and has ordered additional trucks. Further more, he also assumes that EZ provides exceptional services. [前面句子过于简单，感觉最后还少了一个总结错误表明立场的一句]

To begin with, the argument relies on an unproven cause-and effect relationship between EZ’s twice a week trash collection [改为trash collection twice a week 和ABC的那个呼应] and ABC’s once a week. The speaker has not ruled out other possible causes for [of] the comparison---[这个符号能这样用吗]for example, ABC’s customer generated[产生垃圾感觉非常中国化,用discard/cast] less trash than EZ’s, so it is likely quite enough for ABC’s once a week collection task, while the latter’s twice a week proposal is not sufficient[insufficient] for its customer[+s]. As it stands, the author’s solution to the problem is based upon an oversimplified analysis of the issue

                                                                                                       

Scondly, the speaker commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that truck is typical of all trash collection transportation as a group. However, this is not necessarily the case. The example cited, although EZ has the same quantity truck as ABC has, the possibility still exists that ABC might has much more other kinds of trash collection transportation like motorcycle, tricycle than EZ has.[摩托车的例子牵强] If so, then the speaker’s recommendation might amount to poor advice for WG town.

                                                                                          

Thirdly, it is highly doubtful that the last year’s poll will indicate that EZ will achieve the same result this year as it did. The reason is questionable because everything might be changed by times, and the mere overpassed fact is insufficient to establish the claim. Example cited, this year’s poll might show only 40% satisfy with EZ’s performance. The author’s using Post.hoc[什么意思] assume to reach the conclusion is highly suspect

                             

In summary, the author fails to validate the conclusion that WG town should continue using EZ. To make it logically acceptable, the author should demonstrate that EZ’s twice week collection can be enough for his customer, while ABC’s can not. In addition, the arguer would have to provide more concrete evidence[+s], especially the information concerning about all the transportation the two companies has[have]. Finally, [in order to……] the speaker is recommended to show a current survey report, which can directly reflect current EZ’s service performance, to rule out the abovementioned possibility that would undermine the author’s claim

本人的ARGUMENT不好，不能指出其中结构的不恰当，但是还有其他逻辑上的错误你没有找出来，可以看看其他人找的逻辑错误。总的来说你写的还可以

语言上错误不多，攻击的比较合理，觉得比我的ARGUMENT好，我总觉得没话说啊。

仔细改改我的吧，写的不是很好 3Q

[ 本帖最后由 ntmlgsz 于 2006-11-18 16:22 编辑 ]