0706G － CSMY作文互改小组 argument17

nannanwsUID: 2284587

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: 508          TIME: 2:20:00         DATE: 2007-1-4

1 把不选EZ的原因简单的全部归因于价格提升，于是努力想说明价格物有所值。然而实际上可能是由于回收过程不够环保，不能达到政府的新的环保标准等等
2 所给的证据并不能证明涨价有理。论证给出的全是原来和现在同样的服务，但是价格却涨价。
3 证明高价有理的论据并不具有说服力。首先，在底价和较多的回收次数之间，居民不一定会选择回收次数多。第二，增加的垃圾车，可能是公司在其它区域扩展业务，并不一定是用于这个镇，为什么要给这里的人涨价。第三，调查也不一定准确的反映人们的想法。事实上，很多面对面的调查，人们都会碍于情面，对被调查者的评价有所提升。

The speaker's assertion wants to give a conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just based on comparing time of their service in one week, trucks of their possession between the two companies, as well as the respondents ‘s survey in the town. However, observing these evidences above, this argument is lack of logical persuasion between the conclusion and evidences, which I will discuss in the following aspects.  

The major problem in the argument is that the speaker simply attributes the change to the only reason, with charge-raising. The speaker tries to take some other reasons into account, with the purpose of giving the rationality of markup .In fact, this precondition itself is not convictive. Maybe the most significant reason of this change is due to distance between environmental standards of EZ Disposal with the new government regulation. On the contrary, ABC Waste adopts an environmental waste disposal system meeting new standards, and gets more social benefit. Lacking of more illustrations about this precondition, all the evidence can not persuade me.

Even if the charge-raising of EZ Disposal is the only reason of council’s choosing ABC Waste, the speaker can’t conclude the counter advice either. Since the speaker ‘s evidence can not give a striking support to the reasonable markup. From the information given in the argument ,the most possible conclusion we can presume is that ,same services but need different charge ,comparing present with foretime of EZ Disposal. Why do the council choose the old company? The speaker ‘s advice is entirely unconvincing.

If we concede that the markup is reasonable, the final conclusion is still doubtable. In the first place, there is no evidence that residents prefer frequently waste collections to lower price. Also, the speaker fails to support advantages of the additional trucks taking. Perhaps ,EZ Disposal orders more trucks to enlarge the area that they server to, and same number trucks are used in Walnut Grove. Why should the increased charge allot to the residents of Walnut Grove？In addition, from the last year’s town survey, we find no information of the typical and valuable from respondents’s answers. In fact , in some face-to-face investigates, people always present unfaithfulness attitudes which contain concern on the informant. That is to say the conclusion is probably in favor of the EZ , and the “satisfied” with EZ ’s performance of the residents can not reach a high lever. Since the speaker doesn’t make a comprehensive illustration, the conclusion on choosing the EZ is unpersuasive.

After analyzing all the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we can not safely reach the conclusion that the town council is mistaken, as well as they should continue using the EZ. To strengthen the assertion ,the speaker must rule out other possibilities of changing EZ ,and also give a reasonable cause of EZ ’s charge-raising. Meanwhile , the speaker’s should give more details and evidence to show the relationship between the residents’ satisfied with the EZ’ s services.  



[ 本帖最后由 nannanws 于 2007-1-5 00:20 编辑 ]

stevenhuUID: 172722

The speaker's assertion wants to give a conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, just based on comparing time of their service in one week, trucks of their possession （number of trucks possessed）between the two companies, as well as the respondents ‘s survey (应该是被访问者的反映吧，建议用feedback) in the town. However, observing these evidences above, this argument is lack of logical persuasion between the conclusion and evidences, which I will discuss in the following aspects.  The major problem in the (this 感觉比the好，当然那这里不算错，也只是建议)argument is that the speaker simply attributes the change to the only reason, with （不用with， reason和charge－raising因该是同位语） charge-raising. The speaker tries to take some other reasons into account, with the purpose of giving the rationality of markup .In fact, this precondition itself is not convictive. Maybe the most significant reason of this change is due to distance between environmental standards of EZ Disposal with （and） the new government regulation. On the contrary, ABC Waste adopts an environmental waste disposal system meeting new standards, and gets more social benefit. Lacking of more illustrations about this precondition, all the evidence can not persuade me.Even if the charge-raising of EZ Disposal is the only reason of council’s choosing ABC Waste, the speaker can’t conclude the counter (‘s) (顺便，这里是指谁啊，看不太懂) advice either. Since the speaker ‘s evidence can not give a striking support to the reasonable markup. From the information given in the argument, the most possible conclusion we can presume is that, same services but need （去掉need感觉效果更好）different charge, comparing present with foretime of EZ Disposal. Why do (does) the council choose the old company? The speaker ‘s advice is entirely unconvincing. If we concede that the markup is reasonable, the final conclusion is still doubtable. In the first place, there is no evidence that residents prefer frequently （frequent） waste collections to lower price. Also, the speaker fails to support advantages of the additional trucks taking （of taking additional trucks）. Perhaps ,EZ Disposal orders more trucks to enlarge the area that they server (serve) to, and (the) same number (of) trucks are used in Walnut Grove. Why should the increased charge (be) allot (allotted) to the residents of Walnut Grove？In addition, from the last year’s town survey, we find no information of the (去掉the) typical and valuable from respondents’ answers. In fact , in some face-to-face investigates （investigations）, people always present unfaithfulness (unfaithful) attitudes which contain concern on the informant. That is to say the conclusion is probably in favor of the EZ , and the “satisfied” with EZ ’s performance of the residents can not reach a high lever (level)(and the number of residents “satisfied ” with EZ’s performance con not reach a high level). Since the speaker doesn’t make a comprehensive illustration, the conclusion on choosing the EZ is unpersuasive.After analyzing all the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we can not safely reach the conclusion that the town council is mistaken, as well as they should continue using the EZ. To strengthen the assertion, the speaker must rule out other possibilities of changing EZ, and also give a reasonable cause of EZ ’s charge-raising. Meanwhile, the speaker’s should give more details and evidence to show the relationship between the residents’ satisfied with the EZ’s services.  

整体写的还是很不错的，结论也比较好。只是中间还是有一些语法上的错误，多注意词性哦！