Arguement17 周五（4.13) 第一次作业

菲子UID: 2311527

这个东西比较拼凑，用了很多孙远的东西，是偶的第一次写作，看看找的错误有没有问题吧。


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."


In this argument, the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ Disposal. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that the EZ -which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Additionally, the arguer provides the evidence that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. A careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The statistical evidence upon which the argument relies is too vague to be informative. Firstly, the argument doesn't provide us any information of the size of the sample in the last year's town survey, so we cannot be sure about the representation of the data. Moreover, the argument fails to point out the attitude of residents in other town who have had cooperation with the ABC Waste.

In addition, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the times of collecting trash and the service quality of a company. Though the EZ collects trash twice a week, it might be possible that there is no need to do it twice a week for the Walnut Grove's town. Even if the town need twice a week, it is possibly that the ABC will amend the contract to meet the demand.

The fact that the larger amount of trucks of the EZ does not ensure that the EZ will have better service. The EZ, which has more trucks than ABC currently, might not utilize all the trucks at the same time. In addition, the ABC might pay much more attention to the quality of the trucks, so that they can ensure the normal operation of the trucks while collecting the trash.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate the survey. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the service quality of both EZ and ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 菲子 于 2007-4-13 13:19 编辑 ]

ghost33UID: 2267869

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."


In this argument, the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ Disposal. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that the EZ -which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Additionally, the arguer provides the evidence that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. A careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.（经典的孙远式开头，就不说啥了）

The statistical evidence upon which the argument relies is too vague to be informative. Firstly, the argument doesn't provide us any information of the size of the sample in the last year's town survey（觉得只是找到了漏洞，批驳力度不够。加上：如过size太小会导致作者的论证怎么样，就不会显得空洞吧？ ）, so we cannot be sure about the representation of the data（意思不清楚）. Moreover, the argument fails to point out the attitude of residents in other town who have had cooperation with the ABC Waste. （这里也可以再细分析一下）

In addition, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the times of collecting trash and the service quality of a company. Though the EZ collects trash twice a week, it might be possible that there is no need to do it twice a week for the Walnut Grove's town. Even if the town need twice a week, it is possibly that the ABC will amend the contract to meet the demand.（这一句显得很无力，不写也罢）

The fact that the larger amount of trucks of the EZ does not ensure that the EZ will have better service. The EZ, which has more trucks than ABC currently, might not utilize all the trucks at the same time. In addition, the ABC might pay much more attention to the quality of the trucks, so that they can ensure the normal operation of the trucks while collecting the trash.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate the survey. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the service quality of both EZ and ABC.

argument的漏洞找得都差不多，只是我们还要好好研究怎么说才更有力度

菲子UID: 2311527

谢谢修改，我会好好订正:)