Argument17【07-10G Superstar大帖】第二次作业 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

字数：504

In this argument author cite three reasons to get the conclusion . (1) EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. (2) EZ-which will have more trucks than ABC (3) 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. At first gaze the conclusion is reasonable and convincing . However , after reflection, I find that all the three reasons are problematic .

Firstly, the author unfairly assume that EZ may do a better job than ABC because their frequency of collecting trash is twice of ABC’s. But no evidence is given to prove the relationship between the quality and frequency in trash collection. Perhaps workers of EZ are more bored about their job because of more work time, which may lead to the result of lower quality of EZ than ABC. Or perhaps through ABC only collect one time a week , they do more carefully than EZ. If either these cases is true , then this fact can lend little credence to the conclusion.

Turn next to the second supporting reason that EZ will own more trucks than ABC. The speaker make a great mistake by emphasizing on EZ while ignoring ABC. It is entirely possible that ABC ordered more trucks than EZ .If it is the case , the number of trucks of ABC is about to be more than EZ’s , which is just contrary to speaker’s assertion. So unless speaker prove that ABC ordered less , if not none, trucks , the letter can not justify that EZ will have more trucks than ABC. Moreover, even if EZ has more trucks , it may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that EZ is better because there are other elements in determine the quality and efficacy of collection such as management, workers’ skill and running cost . And common sense tell me that maintaining more trucks is likely to bring higher cost and higher price. So with no evidence to prove that more trucks of EZ could promote their service while keep the price reasonable, the speaker can not conclude that EZ is better than ABC.

The last problem lies in last year's town survey in which 80 percent of respondents was satisfied with EZ’s service. For the speaker does not justify that the number of respondent is statistically valid. Perhaps those who are dissatisfied with EZ do not take part in the survey. With no evidence to eliminate this case the result is unconvincing. Even the result of survey is valid , it do not necessarily mean that EZ can do a better job than ABC because ABC have never serviced people in Walnut Grove. So without more information about the survey the speaker can not convince me that in satisfying people EZ could do better than ABC.

In sum , to strengthen the credibility of this conclusion, the writer need more evidence to prove that EZ is better than ABC because of more collection frequency and trucks.

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

In this argument author cite three reasons to get the conclusion .（什么结论，可以说具体点） (1) EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. (2) EZ-which will have more trucks than ABC (3) 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. At first gaze the conclusion is reasonable and convincing . However , after reflection, I find that all the three reasons are problematic .

Firstly, the author unfairly assume that EZ may do a better job than ABC because their frequency of collecting trash is twice of ABC’s. But no evidence is given to prove the relationship between the quality and frequency in trash collection. Perhaps workers of EZ are more bored about their job because of more work time, which may lead to the result of lower quality of EZ than ABC. Or perhaps through ABC only collect one time a week , they do more carefully than EZ. If either these cases is true , then this fact can lend little credence to the conclusion. （有点单薄了，可以再多说一些）

Turn next to the second supporting reason that EZ will own more trucks than ABC. The speaker make a great mistake by emphasizing on EZ while ignoring ABC. It is entirely possible that ABC ordered more trucks than EZ .If it is the case , the number of trucks of ABC is about to be more than EZ’s , which is just contrary to speaker’s assertion（作者并没有说EZ的汽车比较多，只说会增加）. So unless speaker prove that ABC ordered less , if not none, trucks , the letter can not justify that EZ will have more trucks than ABC. Moreover, even if EZ has more trucks , it may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that EZ is better because there are other elements in determine the quality and efficacy of collection such as management, workers’ skill and running cost . And common sense tell me that maintaining more trucks is likely to bring higher cost and higher price. So with no evidence to prove that more trucks of EZ could promote their service while keep the price reasonable, the speaker can not conclude that EZ is better than ABC.

The last problem lies in last year's town survey in which 80 percent of respondents was satisfied with EZ’s service. For the speaker does not justify that the number of respondent is statistically valid. Perhaps those who are dissatisfied with EZ do not take part in the survey. With no evidence to eliminate this case the result is unconvincing. Even the result of survey is valid , it do not necessarily mean that EZ can do a better job than ABC because ABC have never serviced people in Walnut Grove（文中没有这么说）. So without more information about the survey the speaker can not convince me that in satisfying people EZ could do better than ABC.

In sum , to strengthen the credibility of this conclusion, the writer need more evidence to prove that EZ is better than ABC because of more collection frequency and trucks.结尾太单薄了，好像没写完的感觉