argument17<0706G-Aspire互改小组>no.9襄王有梦，等大家来拍

襄王有梦UID: 2297975

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."
WORDS: 208          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-8
In this letter the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove's town council should stick to ABC Waste rather than switch to EZ Disposal. To support this recommendation, the arguer lays the fact that although EZ's service charges $500 more than ABC Waste's, EZ collects trash twice a week, and EZ ordered additional trucks. The arguer also cites a survey which proves EZ has a high qualified service. Nevertheless, I find all these facts specious to justify the recommendation.

First of all, one seemly overwhelming advantage of EZ is not strong as it is mentioned in the letter. The additional one collection will have no sense if the landfill of Walnut Grove is kept under good condition so that there will be not so much trash as has to been collected twice a week. It is entirely possible that one collection of trash in Walnut Grove is enough and the action of EZ will receive the same effects as the Walnut Grove.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks has little use in justifying the arguer's opinion. The arguer fails to supply enough evidence that the additional trucks will be used in trash collection. Perhaps EZ has to update its trucks which are old and out of service. Also, the letter does not supply the date when EZ will receive these tucks. (路漫漫其修远兮，可怜的208个字)The later the delivery date, the less significant this fact should be in Walnut Grove’s decision.

Finally, the proportion of 80 percent satisfied respondents seems convincing. However, there are suspicious factors: Whether the respondents still is satisfied even if the price rises by 25%? Have the respondents tried the ABC’s service and thus given a fair comparison between the two? Whether the respondents is representative enough to indicated the arguer’s opinion for perhaps only the ones who are satisfied to the service of EZ respondent the survey while the others not. The most suspicious factor is whether the survey provided by EZ is convincing. Since it is possible that for the interest of its own ,EZ provides false result to indicate its good service.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. The arguer should provide more evidence that Walnut Grove would benefit from an additional trash collection each week, and that the use of additional trucks would improve service to Walnut Grove. To better assess the strength of the recommendation I would need more information about the demographic profile of the survey's respondents

seven741UID: 2260128

In this letter the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove's town council should stick to ABC Waste rather than switch to EZ Disposal. [老大，看错题意了，应该是stick to EZ] To support this recommendation, the arguer lays the fact that although EZ's service charges [are] $500 more than ABC Waste's, EZ collects trash twice a week, and EZ ordered additional trucks. The arguer also cites a survey which proves EZ has a high[highly] qualified service. Nevertheless, I find all these facts specious to justify the recommendation.

First of all, one seemly overwhelming advantage of EZ is not strong as it is mentioned in the letter. The additional one collection will have no sense[necessity] if the landfill of Walnut Grove is kept under good condition so that there will be not so much trash as has to been collected twice a week. It is entirely possible that one collection of trash in Walnut Grove is enough and the action of EZ will receive the same effects as the Walnut Grove[ the ABC’s].

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks has little use in justifying the arguer's opinion. The arguer fails to supply enough evidence that the additional trucks will be used in trash collection. Perhaps EZ has to update its trucks which are old and out of service. Also, the letter does not supply the date when EZ will receive these tucks. (路漫漫其修远兮，可怜的208个字)[加油!]The later the delivery date, the less significant this fact should be in Walnut Grove’s decision.

Finally, the proportion of 80 percent satisfied respondents seems convincing. However, there are suspicious factors: Whether the respondents still is satisfied even if the price rises by 25%? Have the respondents tried the ABC’s service and thus given a fair comparison between the two? Whether the respondents is representative enough to indicated the arguer’s opinion for perhaps only the ones who are satisfied to the service of EZ respondent the survey while the others not. The most suspicious factor is whether the survey provided by EZ [文中说了这个survey是EZ做的？？] is convincing. Since it is possible that for the interest of its own ,EZ provides false result to indicate its good service.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. The arguer should provide more evidence that Walnut Grove would benefit from an additional trash collection each week, and that the use of additional trucks would improve service to Walnut Grove. To better assess the strength of the recommendation I would need more information about the demographic profile of the survey's respondents.
没啥好说的，模版句子用了不少，自己叙述的句子也还可以。但是这位老大审题还是应该注意，别把作者的意思搞错了，否则就糗大了。