argument17 欢迎拍砖！

zoe797970UID: 2249886

The claim that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ instead of the present ABC seems somewhat reasonable. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence, and the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, three important concerns he/she fails to take into account may undermine the argument seriously.

In the first place, lacking more specific information about the collect frequencies of the two companies, it is impossible to make an informed conclusion. He/she ignores some other factors--such as the areas of each collection and the quantities--which may be more important the qualities of a waste-collect company. In other words, if the EZ collects trash twice a week but collecting the waste of half of the town, then it is unwise and unnecessary to compare it with ABC which collects only once a week. Consequently, any of the above scenarios, if true, would render this comparison a completely ill-founded one.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that EZ is superior to ABC because it has more trucks. While this assumption may be true in most cases, it is equally possible that the capability of ABC is much larger than EZ's, then the sum quantities that ABC can collect each time may much heavier and larger than EZ's. The arguer simply equates the two companies' trucks, which unwarranted and presumptuous.

What further weakens the argument is without knowing more information about the survey mentioned in the analysis; we cannot accept the arguer's recommendation. In fact, from the survey cited, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have sufficient reasons to doubt if the sample is really representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all the residents living in Walnut Grove as a whole. The mere fact that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they liked EZ's performance is insufficient to conclude anything. For one thing, EZ has served for those residents for ten years, while those residents were satisfied with its performance only in last year? Maybe this would be another perfect reason for the council to choose ABC. For another thing, the arguer fails to give the respondents' appreciation about ABC; maybe more than 90 percent residents were more satisfied with ABC's performance.

As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate that EZ did collect more waste than ABC. Furthermore, he/she mush provide credible and acceptable evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.

lintiUID: 2364152

写的很有条理
The claim that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ instead of the present ABC seems somewhat reasonable. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence, and the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, three important concerns he/she fails to take into account may undermine the argument seriously.

In the first place, lacking more specific information about the collect frequencies of the two companies, it is impossible to make an informed conclusion. He/she ignores some other factors--such as the areas of each collection and the quantities--which may be more important (concerned with )the(collecting) qualities of a waste(-collect company)(去掉）. In other words, if the EZ collects trash twice a week but collecting（collects) the waste of half of the town, then it is unwise and unnecessary to compare it with ABC which collects only once a week. Consequently, any of the above scenarios, if true, would render this comparison a completely ill-founded one.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that EZ is superior to ABC because it has more trucks. While this assumption may be true in most cases, it is equally possible that the capability of ABC is much larger than EZ's, then the sum quantities that ABC can collect each time may much heavier and larger than EZ's. The arguer simply equates the two companies' trucks, which (is)  unwarranted and presumptuous.

What further weakens the argument is without knowing more information about the survey mentioned in the analysis; we cannot accept the arguer's recommendation. In fact, from the survey cited, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have sufficient reasons to doubt if the sample is really representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all the residents living in Walnut Grove as a whole. The mere fact that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they liked EZ's performance is insufficient to conclude anything. For one thing, EZ has served for those residents for ten years, while those residents were satisfied with its performance only in last year? Maybe this would be another perfect reason for the council to choose ABC. For another thing, the arguer fails to give the respondents' appreciation about ABC; maybe more than 90 percent residents were more satisfied with ABC's performance.(我觉的这段写的很好，六分的样子，呵呵）

As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate that EZ did collect more waste than ABC. Furthermore, he/she mush（must) provide credible and acceptable evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.
请问你花多长时间写的,总体很好,我觉的至少五分吧

[ 本帖最后由 linti 于 2007-7-20 08:55 编辑 ]

PandeamoniumUID: 2303806

The claim that the Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ instead of the present ABC这你搞错了把,现在的还EZ吧.或者是present这词在这里是别的意思? seems somewhat reasonable. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence, and the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, three important concerns he/she fails to take into account may undermine the argument seriously.
In the first place, lacking more specific information about the collect frequencies of the two companies, it is impossible to make an informed conclusion. He/she ignores some other factors--such as the areas of each collection and the quantities--which may be more important掉了一个to the qualities of a waste-collect company. In other words, if the EZ collects trash twice a week but collecting the waste of half of the town at a time, 这里补充一句"ABC一次就将整个城市的垃圾回收掉"更好吧then it is unwise and unnecessary to compare it with ABC which collects only once a week还可以说ABC的效率更高,更有效的利用现有资源. Consequently, any of the above scenarios, if true, would render this comparison a completely ill-founded one.
In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that EZ is superior to ABC because it has more trucks. While this assumption may be true in most cases, it is equally possible that the capability of ABC is much larger than EZ's, then the sum quantities that ABC can collect each time may much heavier and larger than EZ's. The arguer simply equates the two companies' trucks, which unwarranted and presumptuous专横这个词我认为带有感情色彩不宜使用.
我觉得这段不清楚, ABC can collect each time may much heavier and larger than EZ's这句话与第二段中的关于量的讨论重复了.你说呢 ? ABC的容量比EZ大 次数也少,那么肯定是车的容量大或者是一次去的车多,既然上面那段讨论过量了,我认为这里关于卡车可以说他只是定购了 但还不一定拿的到手,而且定购的也没说清楚是大车还是小车,连是不是卡车都没说,也又可能是清洁车类的,还有可能这车根本都不是为WG这个城市准备的,是为其他城市准备的,这是我想的
What further weakens the argument is without knowing more information about the survey mentioned in the analysis; we cannot accept the arguer's recommendation. In fact, from the survey cited, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have sufficient reasons to doubt if the sample is really representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all the residents living in Walnut Grove as a whole. The mere fact that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they liked EZ's performance is insufficient to conclude anything. For one thing, EZ has served for those residents for ten years, while those residents were satisfied with its performance only in last year? Maybe this would be another perfect reason for the council to choose ABC. For another thing, the arguer fails to give the respondents' appreciation about ABC; maybe more than 90 percent residents were more satisfied with ABC's performance.
As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate that EZ did collect more waste than ABC. Furthermore, he/she mush provide credible and acceptable evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.
关于价格是否合理好像也可以讨论一下:可以说十年的合同使EZ没有受到竞争的压力才导致提价,论断者没有理由不让市民体验一下便宜的ABC的服务等等

其他的我觉得很好  我也不是太清楚了 我想肯定是有4分往上走的

zoe797970UID: 2249886

又仔细看了看，果然是搞错了，我还以为已经换成是ABC了。。。多谢啊！！！
presumputous在这个地方取的是武断的意思
确实啊，改作文真的很好，很多时候自己写的就麻木了，根本就再改不了逻辑上的东西了的感觉。。。
谢谢二位！