Argument 17

leepmoUID: 2296903

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: 395          TIME: NO TIME          DATE: 2007-2-6

The letter is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By comparing the times to collect the trash, the additional trucks and the responses of the local of two companies, EZ Disposal (EZ) and ABC waste (ABC) , the argument of continuing using EZ seems to be unlogical.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week proves little that EZ is better than ABC, since the author cites no more evidences to make us believe that to collect the trash twice are better than once.  It is possible that to collect the trash once a week is enough for the town. The author fails to present the benefits from the additional collection every week.  What's more, the additional collection may also rise the cost of the local people.

Second, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks provides no support to the claim of the author. Will these new-ordered trucks be used to collect the trash of Walnut Grove town? If these trucks are used in some other towns, the additional trucks make nothing helpful for the Walnut Grove town. Even if the trucks will be used in Walnut Grove town, will it be necessary? Maybe the trucks used now are already enough. Also the additional truck may increase the cost of Walnut Grove town. Without ruling out all these possible alternatives, the author cannot defend the conclusion that EZ is better.

Third, to bolster his claim the author also cites the facts that 80 percent of respondents to last year's survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ performance. However, the result of the survey seems to be lack of credibility. We are not informed how many people were surveyed but did not respond and if the responds of the survey constitute sufficient sample to be representative of the overall of the town. Even 80 percent local people are satisfied with the service of EZ. It is possible that people have no chance to make the comparison since EZ provided the service in the past 10 years. Perhaps ABC can work much better than EZ.

In sum, the reasoning behind the argument that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ seems to be unlogical, What's more, the cost of EZ is also higher than ABC. To bolster his claim, the author need to cite more evidences to persuade people that EZ provide a better service and the higher price is worthwhile.

elvis_xuUID: 181081

The letter is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. ETS的句子你都感抄？胆子忒大了！ By comparing the times to collect the trash, the additional trucks and the responses of the local of two companies, EZ Disposal (EZ) and ABC waste (ABC) , the argument of continuing using EZ seems to be unlogical. logical，你说反了吧？
First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once per week proves little that EZ is better than ABC, since the author cites no more evidences to make us believe that to collect twice trash collection per week the trash twice are better than once. It is possible that to collect the trash once a week is enough for the town. The author fails to present the benefits from the additional collection every week.  What's 不能有缩写 more, the additional collection may also rise the cost of the local people.
Second, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks provides no support to the claim of the author. Will these new-ordered trucks be used to collect the trash of Walnut Grove town? If these trucks are used in some other towns, the additional trucks make nothing helpful for the Walnut Grove town. Even if the trucks will be used in Walnut Grove town, will it is that be necessary? Maybe the trucks used now are already enough. Also the additional truck trucks may increase the cost cost的宾语？ of Walnut Grove town. Without ruling out all these possible alternatives, the author cannot defend the conclusion that EZ is better.
Third, to bolster his claim the author also cites the facts that 80 percent of respondents to last year's survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ performance. 我觉得这句话就是在重复，没有必要啊 However, the result of the survey seems to be lack of credibility. We are not informed how many people were surveyed but did not respond and if the responds respondents of the survey constitute sufficient samples to be representative of the overall of the town. Even if 80 percent local people are satisfied with the service of EZ. It is possible because of that people have no chance to make the comparison since EZ provided the service in the past 10 years. Perhaps ABC can work much better than EZ.
In sum, the reasoning behind the argument that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ seems to be unlogical 和开头一样，搞反了, What's more, the cost of EZ is also higher than ABC. To bolster his claim, the author need to cite more evidences evidence to persuade people that EZ provide provides a better service and the higher price is worthwhile.


运用摸班比较熟练，不知道是好处还是坏处。
还有，开头那句，就连我都一眼就看出来了，therefore,一定不能照搬ETS的句子。
开头应该再精简一点。

ID elvis_xu  [cracking GRE 小组]

[ 本帖最后由 elvis_xu 于 2007-2-6 20:17 编辑 ]

nostrumUID: 2124189

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-208286-1-1.html

ps. ls太可爱了