[summer] 第2次作业 by 慕容天际

name05UID: 2291624

Argument17 [summer] 第2次作业 by 慕容天际

第一篇

     In this letter,the auther recommend that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal,collected trash for this town about ten years,rather than ABC Waste,also a waste collection company.To support his proposal,he argued that disbite the fee of EZ is much higher than ABC's the fotmer trash more frequently and will have more trucks in the future.What's more, he cites a result of survey. However, this alone do not constitude a logical statement in favor of its conclusion and fails to provide convincing evidence, making this statement invulnerable and sound. As far as i am concerned, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.

     In the first place, unless the surveyer sampled a sufficient number of a local residents,and did so randomly across the entire spectrum, the survey result is reliable to gauge the satisfaction generally. For instance, if the total number of residents sampled is small, then 80 percent, a seemingly large rates, of the result of the survey would be meaningless but a misleading number. What's more, represents, in itself, can not repressent resident as a whole for ever. A case in point is a large quantity of people sampled, but only a few of them responds, not to mention the number of 80 percent. Even if it is true that most people were satisfied with EZ's performence, the survey made last year might not feflect the situation of this year.

     Another problem that weekens the logic of this argument is that perhaps the small population  and not so many factories make no apparently difference of trashing once a week or twice. Thus, although EZ collects waste more frequently and will have more new trucks than ABC, though we do not know what trucks and how they will be used, this is not the matter.

     Before i come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point another problem, perhaps the most important thing, in the statement that the cost of EZ recently rised dramatically, about $500 more than ABC's. Maybe the economy of this town suffers a recession and the revenue is dicreasing.

     In conclusion, the arguer fail to stengthen his statement that they should choose EZ rather than ABC, since the evidence cited in the statement dose not lend strong support to what he maintains. To make this argument more concincing, the arger would have to provide more information regard to the quality and sfficency of EZ's service, and the most impotant thing--the revence of this town.

第二篇
     In this letter, the arguer recommends that the tow council should continue employ EZ Disposal to collect trash which provides services for about ten years rather than ABC which has been chose to collect garbage. To substantiate his conclusion, he cites that EZ collects more times than ABC a week. Moreover, EZ has ordered more trucks than ABC and a survey reveals that respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance. At first glance, it seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it misleadingly omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed. In my opinion, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

      The threshold problem is the presumption of this argument that ABC’s service is not as good as EZ’s. However, the author did not give out more sufficient evidence. Only relies on the record that ABC collects trash less frequency than EZ, without any other information such as technology and credit is insufficient. Perhaps trash produced by this city is not so much that once a week is sufficient. If so, on the basis of frequency of collection would make no sense to favor EZ over ABC.

      Moreover, the author mentioned that EZ has recently ordered more trucks thus will provide better service. However, there is no evidence that EZ will plan to use new trucks for collecting Walnut Grove’s trash, and another problem is whether new trucks is needed for EZ or not, if not, then it will only a order of no means. Beside, he also dose not indicate when EZ will receive its new trucks; the later the date, the less consideration in Walnut Grove’s decision.

      Another problem is the last year’s town survey, which only has percentage but no specific number, mention in the argument which lack the assurance that these respondents are preventative to the overall population of people whose trash EZ collects. It could not be excluded that only those who satisfied with EZ’s service accept the survey. Not to mention the information not provided that whether those respondents would pay excessive 25% fees. Moreover, even if the survey is correct, the arguer assumes without justification that this trend will continue in the future.

      Even if all the factors mentioned above are solved, the financial condition of government will also call the use of EZ into question. If the government are now facing financial problem then ABC would not be an undesirable choice.

      In conclusion, the recommendation is not well supported. To this letter more convincing, the author must provide that twice a week collection is inevitable. To better strength the argument, he also should provide more information about the survey that citizens and government is willing and able to pay for the excessive fee.



[ 本帖最后由 name05 于 2007-7-19 20:50 编辑 ]

laststrikeUID: 2318203

A只要好好用模板，结构不会有问题。不过还需要具体的论证来weaken author.

Another problem that weekens the logic of this argument is that perhaps the small population  and not so many factories make no apparently difference of trashing once a week or twice. Thus, although EZ collects waste more frequently and will have more new trucks than ABC, though we do not know what trucks and how they will be used, this is not the matter.（先应该指出作者的错误，然后再给出具体的论证来证明no apparently difference of trashing once a week or twice）

     Before i come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point another problem, perhaps the most important thing, in the statement that the cost of EZ recently rised dramatically, about $500 more than ABC's. Maybe the economy of this town suffers a recession and the revenue is dicreasing. （先应该指出作者的错误，然后再给出具体的论证来证明money is not an excuse）