argument17 自由女神小组14作业

mh1988UID: 2189586

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: 383          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-22

Although giving a excellent reasoning to conclude that the town council should continue using EZ, the editor does not tell us the real reason for switching waste disposing company and is not able to convince us that EZ  would provide a better service for extra $500, thus his  conclusion is questionable.

From the statement it seems that the town council changed the company for the raising fee, however, the editor does not provide the real reason.It is very possible that the town council changed the company did not for fee but for the ways of disposing waste. Provide that EZ Disposal is an old company with a traditional way to dispose trash like burning or burying them that would cause harmful damage to circumstance, in contrast, ABC Waste is a new company with a advanced technique like biochemical composition to dispose waste that is safe and healthy, it is undoubtable(out of question  or  undoubted) that the latter has great advantage and should be chosen by the town council.

If the town council's reason is about the raising fee of EZ, the editor's reasoning seems logical, however, actually he still does not provide persuasive evidences to convince us that the EZ indeed would provide a better service than ABC for extra $500 per month. First, the editor concerned about that EZ would collect trash twice a week but ABC only once. It seems that EZ provide more services, but the editor does not substantiate that this is necessary. Perhaps once a week would suffice to the need of citizens, more than once is a kind of waste. Second, the fact that EZ would own more trucks seems to transmit us a message that EZ can provide better services with more trucks, in fact, this assumption is groundless. Perhaps the EZ's trucks are all old styles and perform badly but ABC's are in the opposite condition. In addition, the author cites a survey to show us that residents of the town are satisfied of EZ’s job. However, it is possible that ABC would get the same satisfaction and more important ABC’s fee is cheaper. If the author can not provide any more evidence to convince that EZ can provide a better service than ABC for extra fee, then choosing ABC is surely a better choice.

任梦忆UID: 2305458

Although giving a excellent reasoning to conclude that the town council should continue using EZ, the editor does not tell us the real reason for switching waste disposing company and is not able to convince us that EZ  would provide a better service for extra $500, thus his  conclusion is questionable.

From the statement it seems that the town council changed the company for the raising fee, however, the editor does not provide the real reason. It is very possible that the town council changed the company did not for fee but for the ways of disposing waste. Provide that EZ Disposal is an old company with a traditional way to dispose trash like burning or burying them that would cause harmful damage to circumstance, in contrast, ABC Waste is a new company with a advanced technique like biochemical composition to dispose waste that is safe and healthy, it is undoubtable (out of question  or  undoubted) that the latter has great advantage and should be chosen by the town council.

If the town council's reason is about the raising fee of EZ, the editor's reasoning seems logical, however, actually he still does not provide persuasive evidences to convince us that the EZ indeed would provide a better service than ABC for extra $500 per month.
First, the editor concerned about that EZ would collect trash twice a week but ABC only once. It seems that EZ provide more services, but the editor does not substantiate that this is necessary. Perhaps once a week would suffice to the need of citizens, more than once is
a kind of waste(似乎有点太口语化了).
Second, the fact that EZ would own more trucks seems to transmit us a message that EZ can provide better services with more trucks, in fact, this assumption is groundless. Perhaps the
EZ's trucks （the truck of EZ）
are all old styles and perform badly but ABC's are in the opposite condition.
In addition, the author cites a survey to show us that residents of the town are satisfied of EZ’s job. However, it is possible that ABC would get the same satisfaction and more important ABC’s fee is cheaper. If the author can not provide any more evidence to convince that EZ can provide a better service than ABC for extra fee, then choosing ABC is surely a better choice.


字数不够,才400
不够你的提纲写得和北美范文以及孙远的完全不一样.....

下面这个兄弟和你写的同一篇,你可以看看哦.....

http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewth ... e%3D3#pid1769766251