argument17 【076G－背水一战小组】第二次作业 请拍～！

kylinUID: 2242436

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."
——提纲——
1.EZ的twice a week是否真有必要？也许镇上垃圾并不多或者abc的一次清理就很有效了。
2。EZ's additional trucks有用没而且现在没加车就已经2500了加车后是否会更高？何况它加的车不是为了处理本镇垃圾呢？
3。survey, misleadingly vague. sample明细？而且只有EZ的 ABC的呢？也许对ABC满意度更高。
4。EZ加价的原因？说不定是因为10年都垄断所以无故提价
结论先弄清镇上的情况如居民对两家的满意度垃圾量 EZ的加价原因否则要求政府接受价格高的没道理

——正文——
In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste-another firm of trash collection services. As the EZ, which has been serving to collect trash for residents in Walnut Grove for 10 years, raised its monthly fee recently, the arguer claims that the council should keep the cooperation with it for several reasons. However, the argument is vulnerable in several aspects.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there is a need for collecting trash twice a week. In spite of the EZ Disposal can offer trash collection services once more than ABC Waste does, it doesn't stand for residents in Walnut Grove may produce that large amount of trash. Perhaps the waste that residents consume is not much at all, hence it is not necessary for collecting trash more than once a week. On the other hand, what if the EZ Disposal's work is far less efficient than ABC Waste's? If the ABC Waste is able to clear all of the trash by once while the EZ Disposal needs twice to do so, it is no doubt that the town council would like to shift its favor.

Moreover, it is arbitrary to consider that the EZ Disposal's plan for increasing its trucks is absolutely resulting in enhancing benefits to residents in Walnut Grove. It is likely that those additional trucks will probably contribute in other works, such as offering services of collecting trash for other nearby towns. Thus, the new trucks may bring about no effects for advancing the EZ Disposal's work in Walnut Grove.

On the other hand, the survey that the arguer cites in this argument is misleadingly vague. Although the arguer shows that last year there were 80 percent of respondents of the survey approved EZ's performance, we still don't have the faintest idea how was the survey conducted. Whether the samples of the survey are large enough? Whether those people who took the survey were a specific group, like residents who have been always supporting the EZ? As the arguer fails to provide more details of the survey, it is hardly to believe that the survey is reliable. Meanwhile, how about the popularity of ABC among residents in Walnut Grove? It is probably that people actually feel more satisfactory about the ABC's work, but the arguer conceals the fact intendedly.

Last but not least, the reason of why did the EZ decide to raise its monthly fee for trash services is unknown. Since the EZ has been monopolizing the trash services in Walnut Grove for ten years, it is likely that it requires a higher fee only for the purpose of seeking more benefits for itself. Based on this motive, the EZ's consumers may never obtain more advantages by adding the payment.

To sum up, unless the arguer takes a further investigation for collecting more detailed and sound information about the condition of trash collection services in Walnut Grove, such as the quantity of trash residents consume and residents' attitude to the both firms, it is unfair to blame that the town council switches its choice.

dallenlinUID: 2247050

Last but not least, the reason of why did the EZ decide to raise its monthly fee for trash services is unknown. Since the EZ has been monopolizing the trash services in Walnut Grove for ten years, it is likely that it requires a higher fee only for the purpose of seeking more benefits for itself. Based on this motive, the EZ's consumers may never obtain more advantages by adding the payment.

１０年都和它合作不能说明垄断吧？！没有ＡＢＣ的存在才能说它垄断吧！！而且要提怎么不早提？有竞争对手还敢提啊？
　　　这段有点欠妥个人感觉～～～

kylinUID: 2242436

感谢～这个建议很好 确实有漏洞～～我换个别的flaw好了～
另 很喜欢lz拍砖的犀利风格 呵呵

SkysijieUID: 2233317

In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste-another firm of trash collection services. As the EZ, which has been serving to collect trash for residents in Walnut Grove for 10 years, raised its monthly fee recently, the arguer claims that the council should keep the cooperation with it for several reasons. However, the argument is vulnerable in several aspects.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there is a need for collecting trash twice a week. In spite of the EZ Disposal can offer trash collection services once more than ABC Waste does, it doesn't stand for residents in Walnut Grove may produce that large amount of trash. Perhaps the waste that residents consume is not much at all, hence it is not necessary for collecting trash more than once a week. On the other hand, what if the EZ Disposal's work is far less efficient than ABC Waste's? If the ABC Waste is able to clear all of the trash by once while the EZ Disposal needs twice to do so, it is no doubt that the town council would like to shift its favor.

Moreover, it is arbitrary to consider that the EZ Disposal's plan for increasing its trucks is absolutely resulting in enhancing benefits to residents in Walnut Grove. It is likely that those additional trucks will probably contribute in other works, such as offering services of collecting trash for other nearby towns. Thus, the new trucks may bring about no effects for advancing the EZ Disposal's work in Walnut Grove.

On the other hand, the survey that the arguer cites in this argument is misleadingly vague. Although the arguer shows that last year there were 80 percent of respondents of the survey approved EZ's performance, we still don't have the faintest idea how was the survey conducted. Whether the samples of the survey are large enough? Whether those people who took the survey were a specific group, like residents who have been always supporting the EZ? As the arguer fails to provide more details of the survey, it is hardly to believe that the survey is reliable. Meanwhile, how about the popularity of ABC among residents in Walnut Grove? It is probably that people actually feel more satisfactory about the ABC's work, but the arguer conceals the fact intendedly.

Last but not least, the reason of why did the EZ decide to raise its monthly fee for trash services is unknown. Since the EZ has been monopolizing the trash services in Walnut Grove for ten years, it is likely that it requires a higher fee only for the purpose of seeking more benefits for itself. Based on this motive, the EZ's consumers may never obtain more advantages by adding the payment.

To sum up, unless the arguer takes a further investigation for collecting more detailed and sound information about the condition of trash collection services in Walnut Grove, such as the quantity of trash residents consume and residents' attitude to the both firms, it is unfair to blame that the town council switches its choice.
lz的这篇阿狗本身是不错的，思路清晰，论证过程也不错，但不知道有没有感觉很多人也都是用同样的逻辑：攻击author的那3点论据。建议lz看下“arguement就应该这样写(二)！！！”也许会有不同的想法 ^0^