Arugment17 [米国有米小组FeibingX第一次作业]欢迎来拍！

feibingxUID: 2212956

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: 464                  Date: 2006-11-17

The letter suggest that it is a mistake that the Walnut Grove’s town council switch from EZ disposal(which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, though EZ recently raised its monthly fee for 25% while ABC’s fee is still $2,000. To support this recommendation, three facts are cited: 1) EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. 2) EZ currently has ordered additional trucks. 3) EZ provides exceptional service because 80 percent of respondents to survey agreed that EZ’s performance is satisfied. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facts that are questionable.

First, is it absolutely better that trashing twice than once a week? It is rather possible that trashing once a week is already enough for the trash work. Is there a necessary trashing twice a week? The author has not provided the data of this aspect. Although this 50% service of many collects 25% expenses, it still will be a waste of money if trashing once a week is already enough for the work. For that matter, the author can’t convince me on switching EZ to ABC is a bad idea before more data is provided.

Secondly, the causal relationship between the cause of EZ ordering additional trucks and the effect that EZ will provide better services is unwarranted. There is no proof that the new truck will be used for trashing. It can't be expelled the probably that EZ company is willing to expand its business lately, such as contributing efforts for another city. Moreover, no evidence indicates the trucks ABC provides is not enough for the city. In fact, perhaps more trucks are not only a waste, but also a burthen to the traffic of Walnut Grove. Before the author gives more evidence proving the city do needs more trucks for the trash work, it will not be convictive that EZ which provides more truck provides a better service.

Thirdly, relevant theory according to in speak of the inquisition also has doubtful point. No measures are said adopted to investigate sample to have a representative with assurance. I can’t expel the probability that only satisfied people accepted the survey or sent back the inquisition questionnaire. And the inquisition also didn't show people would like to pay 25% expenses more for this kind of satisfaction.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must prove EZ do serve better than ABC on some convictive evidence -- perhaps by way of a local survey or study -- that local people would do in fact pay more for the satisfied serviced EZ provides.

joochangUID: 2265219

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: 464                  Date: 2006-11-17

The letter suggest[suggests] that it is a mistake that the Walnut Grove’s town council switch from EZ disposal(which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, though EZ recently raised its monthly fee for 25% while ABC’s fee is still $2,000. To support this recommendation, three facts are cited: 1) EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. 2) EZ currently has ordered additional trucks. 3) EZ provides exceptional service because 80 percent of respondents to survey agreed that EZ’s performance is satisfied. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facts that are questionable.[较完整地总结了文章主要观点]

First, is it absolutely better that trashing [collecting trash] twice than once a week? It is rather possible that trashing once a week is already enough for the trash work. Is there a necessary trashing twice a week? [这里给出攻击“搜集两次不好”的其他解释（alternative explanation），会更具说服力] The author has not provided the data of this aspect. Although this 50% service of many collects 25% expenses[不太理解], it still will be a waste of money if trashing once a week is already enough for the work. For that matter, the author can’t convince me on [用that好一些]switching EZ to ABC is a bad idea before more data is provided.

Secondly, the causal relationship between the cause of EZ ordering additional trucks and the effect that EZ will provide better services is unwarranted. There is no proof that the new truck will be used for trashing. It can't be expelled the probably[probability] that EZ company is willing to expand its business lately, such as contributing efforts for [to]another city. Moreover, no evidence indicates the trucks ABC provides[provided] is not enough for the city. In fact, perhaps more trucks are not only a waste, but also a burthen to the traffic of Walnut Grove. Before the author gives more evidence proving the city do needs more trucks for the trash work, it will not be convictive that EZ which provides more truck provides a better service.

Thirdly, relevant theory according to in speak of [什么意思？]the inquisition also has doubtful point. No measures are said adopted to investigate sample to have a representative with assurance. I can’t expel the probability that only satisfied people accepted the survey or sent back the inquisition questionnaire. And the inquisition also didn't show people would like to pay 25% expenses more for this kind of satisfaction.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must prove EZ do serve better than ABC on some convictive evidence -- perhaps by way of a local survey or study -- that local people would do in fact pay more for the satisfied serviced EZ provides.[结尾提出了解决方法，很不错]
文章指出并攻击了几个重要的错误，条理较清楚。但是段间的过渡换一些词会更好，first、 second显得过于平常。另外，攻击错误所使用的句型已有一定功力，稍稍修炼即可更上一层。