argument17 [0710G-summer小组]第二次作业by eenbr

eenbrUID: 2259468

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 $2500 a month, whereas  ABC's fee is still $2000. 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 letter, the author suggests the Walnut Grove town stop to switch the disposal company from EZ Disposal to ABC waste. In order to support this recommendation, the author points out that though the price of EZ becomes higher than that of ABC recently, EZ is better than ABC in terms of picking up frequency. Morover, the EZ plans to expand its fleet size by buying more trucks. The author also provides the newly-conducted survey indicting that most people in town are satisfied with EA's performance. However, the author's statement lends little support to his conclusion that the town council is mistaken.

First of all, the author fails to equate frequency to amount. we cannot not be convincted that the town will benefit from EA's higher frequency of picking up waste. Maybe picking up waste once a week is already enough for the whole town. It is also quite likely that the total amount of waste picked up by ABC weekly is larger than that of EZ, though the latter is picked twice a week. so without ruling out this possibility, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the town can benefit from EZ's higher frequency of collecting waste.
Secondly, the author fails to provide any evidence to prove that the expanding truck fleet would bring benefit to the town. It is true that the EA will buy additional trucks to collect waste. But the author cannot confirm those additional trucks will be used in the Walnut Grove town. It is entirely possible that those trucks will be used in any other towns in order to meet the requirement of expanding business. What is more, the author does not indicate when those additional trucks will be bought and put into collecting waste. If such buying plan will be conducted in the far future, it is completely meaningless to discuss the benefit of those additional trucks bring to the town, let alone once those trucks will be used in other town.

Finally, the author unfairly draws the conclusion the people are satisfied with EZ's performance based on the unsubstantial survey conducted last year. There is no evidence that the respondents in this survey are representatives of the whole population of people in town. Without this evidence, we are not convinced that EZ would be more popular than ABC. Another problem with this statement is that perhaps people will also satisfied with ABC in the same survey, or even more.

In sum, the author's statement is weak and unpersuasive. To substantiate the statement, the author should add other evidences including the amount of waste collected by EZ is more than that of ABC, the additional trucks of EZ will be used in Walnut Grove town in near future, the respondents involved in the survey are representatives of the whole population in town. Also, it is better for author to compare the popularity between ABC and EZ in the people of Walnut Grove town.

[ 本帖最后由 eenbr 于 2007-7-20 02:46 编辑 ]

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

主要错误挑出来了，逻辑也没有问题，不过我们都是参考北美的思路，估计考试时候写成这样不会低但也肯定不会高，属于普普吧，很难有亮点。看来还是应该更注意一下逻辑分析的透彻与全面阿 比如分析一下是不是因为EZ一直垄断垃圾收购业务才导致涨价，这个涨价政府是不是能够承担，是不是应该引入合理竞争。。。

dragonraceUID: 178536

In this letter, the author suggests the Walnut Grove town stop to(town’s stop to/town to stop to/town stopping：suggest sth,suggest sb to do,suggest sb doing) switch the disposal company from EZ Disposal to ABC waste. In order to support this recommendation, the author points out that though the price of EZ becomes higher than that of ABC recently, EZ is better than ABC in terms of picking up frequency. Morover, the EZ plans to expand its fleet size by buying more trucks. The author also provides the newly-conducted survey indicting that most people in town are satisfied with EA's performance. However, the author's statement lends little support to his conclusion that the town council is mistaken.

First of all, the author fails to equate frequency to amount. we cannot not(not重复了) be convincted(convinced) that the town will benefit from EA's higher frequency of picking up waste. Maybe picking up waste once a week is already enough for the whole town. It is also quite likely that the total amount of waste picked up by ABC weekly is larger than that of EZ, though the latter is picked twice a week. so without ruling out this possibility, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the town can benefit from EZ's higher frequency of collecting waste.
Secondly, the author fails to provide any evidence to prove that the expanding truck fleet would bring benefit to the town(will benefit the town是不是更好些呢). It is true that the EA will buy additional trucks to collect waste. But the author cannot confirm those additional trucks will be used in the Walnut Grove town. It is entirely possible that those trucks will be used in any other towns in order to meet the requirement of expanding business. What is more, the author does not indicate when those additional trucks will be bought and put into collecting waste. If such buying plan will be conducted in the far future, it is completely meaningless to discuss the benefit of those additional trucks bring(brought) to the town, let alone once those trucks will be used in other town.

Finally, the author unfairly draws the conclusion the people are satisfied with EZ's performance based on the unsubstantial survey conducted last year. There is no evidence that the respondents in this survey are representatives of the whole population of people in town. Without this evidence, we are not convinced that EZ would be more popular than ABC. Another problem with this statement is that perhaps people will also satisfied with ABC in the same survey, or even more.

In sum, the author's statement is weak and unpersuasive. To substantiate the statement, the author should add other evidences including the amount of waste collected by EZ is more than that of ABC, the additional trucks of EZ will be used in Walnut Grove town in near future, the respondents involved in the survey are representatives of the whole population in town. Also, it is better(it would be much better if the author could compare…..) for author to compare the popularity between ABC and EZ in the people of Walnut Grove town in a more practical way.

[ 本帖最后由 dragonrace 于 2007-7-20 11:01 编辑 ]