Argument17 继续盼被揍揍 恭迎贵府砖头～×^^×

sylvie0211UID: 2296270

多谢咯，辛苦哈

Argument17
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."

1：WG政府选择ABC可能不单纯因为价格因素，是因为ABC处理垃圾的方法比较环保，也许EZ还是传统的垃圾填埋，而ABC已经进入到垃圾分类回收循环利用或变成肥料的处理方法。
2：WG市是否有那么多的垃圾值得每周收俩次且还订购更多的车辆值得商榷（deliberate）。
3：作者没有提供充足的证据证明EZ的500元的理由。服务满意率又高，收集次数越多，提价无理由。

In this editorial, the arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's (WG) council chooses ABC company instead EZ is unreasonable. EZ provides collection services two times a week, at the same time, ABC has just once. Even though EZ's price has $500 higher than before, but they have the same number of trash trucks as ABC, and they consider increase more truchs into their trash trucks team. These reasons seem reliable at the first glance, but it still has some flaws as following.

At the first place, WG's council decide to choose ABC to collect the trash may be not relate with money, the trucks number and the service agreeable percent. The method to dispose the trash might a vital factor. There has the possibility that ABC collect the waste in sort and then some like paper can be a circle paper using again, the trash like the cooking waste can be plant food. On the other hand EZ might just bury those waste, is really make the environment worse.

Secondly, the arguer cannot convince that the $500 higher is reasonable. In the past ten years, EZ used he's 20 trucks to collect wastes and they got 80 percent of people agreed with their job. The arguer has not provided any evidence to testify that there have some changes in WG and any information about the more money should cost of. In this situation, I cannot just accept the number 500, why is not 100 or 150, or why not cut the charge.

The last but not the least, the arguer's assumption: EZ collect the trash twice a week is one of his advantages is unwarranted. There is no data can convince me that the waste's quantity is too much to need a two times collection. Maybe there are not many people in WG and so their trash collect once a week is enough. So in this case, the more trucks is not that necessary many more. The more times they collect or the more trucks they buy is all waste money and resources.

To sum up, if the arguer cannot give me more evidence to support his assumption that EZ's service is less polluting the environment and the $500 increase is really worth. I would not believe that WG's council change them choice to ABC is a not a good idea.

elvis_xuUID: 181081

ID， elvis_xu， 楼主有空给我拍拍
---------------------------
Argument17
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."
1：WG政府选择ABC可能不单纯因为价格因素，是因为ABC处理垃圾的方法比较环保，也许EZ还是传统的垃圾填埋，而ABC已经进入到垃圾分类回收循环利用或变成肥料的处理方法。
2：WG市是否有那么多的垃圾值得每周收俩次且还订购更多的车辆值得商榷（deliberate）。
3：作者没有提供充足的证据证明EZ的500元的理由。服务满意率又高，收集次数越多，提价无理由。
In this editorial, the arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's (WG) council chooses ABC company instead EZ is unreasonable. EZ provides collection services two times a week, at the same time, ABC has just once. Even though EZ's price has $500 higher than before, but they have the same number of trash trucks as ABC, and they consider increase more truchs trucks into their trash trucks team. These reasons seem reliable at the first glance, but it still has some flaws as following. 强烈建议开头不要RESTATE，费时间，没用
At the first place, WG's  council decide to choose ABC to collect the trash may be not relate with money, the trucks number and the service agreeable percent. The method to dispose the trash might a vital factor.这句的动词哪里去了 There has the possibility that ABC collects the waste in sort and then some like paper can be a circle paper using againand then some recyclable materials, like papers, could be recycled, the trash like the cooking waste can be plant food. On the other hand EZ might just bury those waste, is really make the environment worse. is really the cause of making environment worse
Secondly, the arguer cannot convince that the $500 higher is reasonable. In the past ten years, EZ used he's 20 trucks to collect wastes and they got 80 percent of people agreed with their job. The arguer has not provided any evidence to testify that there have some changes in WG and any information about the more money should cost of. In this situation, I cannot just accept the number 500, why is not 100 or 150, or why not cut the charge.
The last but not the least, the arguer's assumption: EZ collects the trash twice a week is one of his advantages is unwarranted. There is no data which can convince me/ to convince me can convince me that the waste's quantity is too much to need two collections a week/ so much that ...too much to need a two times collection. Maybe there are not so many people in WG and so and\so their trash collect once a week is enough their once a week collection is enough. 太多so了换ThereforeSo in this case, the more additional trucks is are not that necessary many more many more多余. The more times they collect or the more trucks they buy is 前面用了and这里有are all a kind of waste of money waste money and resources.
To sum up, if the arguer cannot give me more evidence to support his assumption that EZ's service is less polluting the environment and the $500 increase is really worth. I would not believe that WG's council change them choice to ABC is a not a good idea. 呵呵，这个双重否定还是不错的哦
个人意见，不见得对。
我曾经的ARGUMENT和你写的差不多，摘了很多摸班，用上去后，字数就上来了。
但后来仔细研究了一下ETS的范文，差距极大，好像用了一堆没有用的话堆砌出来的，虽然字数上去了，但真正批驳的地方不多。
楼主的文章摸班可以再减少一点，开头要注意！
欢迎楼主拍拍我的文章，我们可以交流交流


[ 本帖最后由 elvis_xu 于 2007-2-6 12:10 编辑 ]

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

回拍喽^^
Argument17
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."

1：WG政府选择ABC可能不单纯因为价格因素，是因为ABC处理垃圾的方法比较环保，也许EZ还是传统的垃圾填埋，而ABC已经进入到垃圾分类回收循环利用或变成肥料的处理方法。我没考虑这个，互拍果真收获大大
2：WG市是否有那么多的垃圾值得每周收俩次且还订购更多的车辆值得商榷（deliberate）。
3：作者没有提供充足的证据证明EZ的500元的理由。服务满意率又高，收集次数越多，提价无理由提纲看起来提价很有理由哎，只是需不需要的问题。

In this editorial, the arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's (WG) council chooses ABC company instead of EZ is unreasonable. EZ provides collection services two times a week, at the same time, ABC hasdoes just once. Even though EZ's price has $500 higher than before, but they have the same number of trash trucks as ABC这个不太好说呀, and they consider increase more truchstrucks into their trash trucks team. These reasons seem reliable at the first glance, but it改称the editorial或this line of reasoning好些，否则和these reasons 连在一起有些指代不明 still has some flaws as following.

At改为In the first place, WG's council decides to choose ABC to collect the trash may be not related with money, the trucks number andor the service agreeable percent. The method to dispose the trash might a vital factor. There has the possibility that ABC collect the waste in sort and then some like paper can be a circle paper using again改为recycled好些, the trash like the cooking waste can be used as plant food 真的可以用剩饭作植物养料么……. On the other hand EZ might just bury those waste, is really make the environment worse.

Secondly, the arguer cannot convince me that the $500 higher is reasonable. In the past ten years, EZ used he'sits 20 trucks to collect wastes and they got 80 percent of people agreed with their job. The arguer has not provided any evidence to testify that there have some changes in WG and any information about the more money should cost of 改为be needed. In this situation, I cannot just accept the number 500, . why is not 100 or 150, or why not cut the charge.?

The last but not the least, the arguer's assumption: EZ collect the trash twice a week is one of his advantages is unwarranted. There is no data can convince me that the waste's quantity is too much to need a two times collectiontoo…to.表示太……（以致）不能……. Maybe there are not many people in WG and so their trash collected once a week is enough. So in this case, the more trucks is not that necessary many more. The more times they collect or the more trucks they buy is改为are all waste money and resources.

To sum up, if the arguer cannot give me more evidence to support his assumption that EZ's service is less polluting the environment and the $500 increase is really worthworth 用在这不太好,worthy. I would not believe that WG's council change them choice to ABC is a not a good idea.

[ 本帖最后由 kexinyupiao 于 2007-2-8 00:11 编辑 ]