Argument17 [0710G-小猪快跑小组]第2次作业 by Shania

Shania.33UID: 2363464

Argument17    字数：619    不限时     日期：2007-7-19 12:10:30

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove's town council should continue use EZ Disposal albeit EZ recently raised its monthly fee to $2,500 per month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. To substantiate the evidence, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC collects only once and EZ will increase its amount of trucks. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey to prove EZ’s exceptional and satisfied service. The analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows.


To begin with, the most egregious reasoning error in the letter is the fallacy of hasty generalization. The arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's town council continues using EZ Disposal could satisfy the resident on its act of collecting trash twice a week and increasing more trucks. However, there is limited information about the ABC collects which equally possible has the exceptional services. In other words, the argument overlooks many other possible conditions that the ABC collects also arranged to increase its trucks and provide ascendant services. Except of ABC collects trash only once a week, we are told anything else about it，such as its credit registers, disposal technology...etc. Comparing with the factor Walnut Grove's town had used EZ for ten years; it is equally possible that the council and resident understand little about ABC collects’ unknown benefits to attain the similar satisfy. Additionally, maybe there are many other companies that collect trash in town, who charges much less than the two companies. Without ruling out the above possibilities, the arguer simply suggests that they should continue use EZ, is certainly groundless.


Secondly, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week and ABC collects only once as a premise to substantiate the conclusion, but it is unfair to infer on the comparison between EZ collects and ABC collects. Perhaps the Walnut Grove town is enough to maintain the clean habitation by trashing only once a week on the base of its limited area and few residents. For most instances, perhaps it is unnecessary and a lavish behavior for clean twice a week. What’s more, the monthly fee of EZ is raised from $2,000 to $2,500 recently and ABC's fee is still $2,000. From the limited data we are not offered any convincing information to realize the true cause of EZ’s rising. Maybe the resident of Walnut Grove town can not accept the change, but the arguer does not support any reasoned evidence about the attitude of the people. The arguer also should consider that whether it is acceptable by the finance status of Walnut Grove's town council.


Finally, the survey results as reported are vague to support any firm conclusion that the overall people’s true reflection. Firstly, we are not formed how many people were surveyed respond and not respond with an exactly data in the last year's town survey. Maybe the questionnaires are all faculty of the EZ's relatives, or friends, or the respondents are the client of EZ collects and these people are not representative of the overall population of the resident. Then the result is not convincing indeed. Secondly, the people who agreed with EZ's satisfied performance maybe change their attitude from its rising month’s fee and changeless services. Additionally, lacking information rely on the statistical survey of ABC collect, which is unreasoned to concludes that EZ's performance is better and the conclusion is neither sound nor persuasive.


Not only does the conclusion leaves out of key issues, but also cites in the statement, which does not substantiate the arguer claims. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all alternatives before the final decision made by the Walnut Grove's town council.


Syllabus：
1.         论断草率。作者认为应该继续实用EZ，因为它继续一月两次的服务和增量的卡车。但没有明确的证据表明ABC就没有附加服务，也许ABC也增加了卡车数量也能使用户满意。我们不能得知ABC的情况，包括它的信用情况，垃圾处理技术等。而EZ曾经被政府用过十年很可能已被居民熟知了，有可能ABC能提供同样的服务只是居民和政府了解的不多。还可能还有其他比EZ和ABC都便宜的收垃圾公司存在。

2.         从EZ一周收两次而ABC一周收一次垃圾就推断EZ更好，很不合理。有可能Walnut Grove town面积狭小，人口稀疏，所以一周收一次垃圾就够了。一周收两次会浪费而不必要。而且，EZ的月收费增加了，没有证据表明居民对增加收费后的态度如何，也许他们会不愿意接受。作者也需要考虑一下Walnut Grove town政府财政状况是否能接受。

3.         调查的数据模糊故无法反映居民真实的反响。我们不知道具体的回复调查和没回复调查的人数，也许调查问卷是EZ的朋友或亲戚出的，也许调查的回复者就是EZ的老主顾，根本不具备Walnut Grove town整体人口态度的代表性；其次，去年答复说满意的居民，有可能会在EZ的收费增加后改变他们的态度；最后，因为缺乏对ABC的统计调查的信息，那么我们就不能比较说EZ是最好的。


       重点采纳了上篇沙龙拔丝的一些修改建议，写了这篇argu17。感觉比上次写时痛苦一些，一是不限时写边写边Y边改；二是改掉了以前习惯性的先后攻击顺序和反问句；三是这次先重论述再用模板，毕竟模板只是重要的废话：）
  网上有一篇啥啥argument就该这样写的文章，重点拿这篇17开刀剖析，很感激那个作者的一些分析，但是最后还是觉得要对得起ETS出题的初衷，所以不能忽视此篇的一些明显的错误。保分是第一，其次再深度思考钻牛角尖，呵呵。鄙人愚见。


===============================    （提纲）Argument 47         ==============================
Syllabus：

1.         论断的前提不一定成立。前提之一是亚洲地区记录的巨响的确是来自火山喷发，但论者没有提供任何资料证明那声巨响与火山喷发有关。前提之二作者没有足够的信息表明大型小行星撞击地球是不可能的，少有历史记录，可能是没被记载或者可能是记载的历史资料被毁坏了。历史记录里没有提到强光，有可能是没被记载，也可能是强光发生在无人的区域，比如南极。

2.         论断的论据没说服力。一些亚洲历史的记录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大轰隆声，推测有可能是因为火山喷发。但首先它并不是记录的火山喷发，没有证据证明这个轰隆声就是真的火山喷发，有可能是其他的因素如地震声或者雷鸣声。另外论者也没有提供资料这声巨响是在时候发生的，规模如何，是否紧跟着就气温下降了。如果巨响发生时气温已经下降，就不能说明气温下降与这巨响有关。

3.         结论草率。作者因为排除了陨石的可能性而认为是火山，但除了这两种原因之外是否就不再存在其他可能性了，论者没有告诉我们是否只有这两种情况会造成全球气温突然下降。而且作者仅使用亚洲和欧洲表述全球的气候是不对的，因为两个区域不能代表整个地球。


[ 本帖最后由 Shania.33 于 2007-7-23 09:09 编辑 ]

frecklewang1984UID: 2355474

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove's town council should continue use EZ Disposal albeit EZ recently raised its monthly fee to $2,500 per month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. To substantiate the evidence, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC collects only once and EZ will increase its amount of trucks. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey to prove EZ’s exceptional and satisfied service. 个人感觉，这里加个转折连词会更好The analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows.


To begin with, the most egregious reasoning error in the letter is the fallacy of hasty generalization. The arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's town council continues using EZ Disposal could satisfy the resident on its act of collecting trash twice a week and increasing more trucks. However, there is limited information about the ABC collects which equally possible has the exceptional services EZ也没有给出服务的消息啊，ABC在这个方面信息不是limited的把？. In other words, the argument overlooks many other possible conditions that the ABC collects also arranged to increase its trucks and provide ascendant services. Except of 不要，另外，except是介词，不能跟句子ABC collects trash only once a week, we are少了个NOT吧??? told anything else about it，such as its credit registers, disposal technology...etc. Comparing with the factor Walnut Grove's town had used EZ for ten years; it is equally possible that the council and resident understand little about ABC collects’ unknown benefits to attain the similar satisfy.这个可能性用的很好！ Additionally, maybe there are many other companies that collect trash in town, who charges much less than the two companies. 这个就不用了把，文中的目的是在比较这两个中选哪个Without ruling out the above possibilities, the arguer simply suggests that they should continue use EZ, is certainly groundless.


Secondly, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week and ABC collects only once as a premise to substantiate the conclusion, but it is unfair to infer on the comparison between EZ collects and ABC collects. Perhaps the Walnut Grove town is enough to maintain the clean habitation by trashing only once a week on the base of its limited area and few residents恩，这个可能性也很好. For most instances, perhaps it is unnecessary and a lavish behavior for clean twice a week. What’s more, the monthly fee of EZ is raised from $2,000 to $2,500 recently and ABC's fee is still $2,000. From the limited data we are not offered any convincing information to realize the true cause of EZ’s rising. Maybe the resident of Walnut Grove town can not accept the change, but the arguer does not support any reasoned evidence about the attitude of the people. The arguer also should consider that whether it is acceptable by the finance status of Walnut Grove's town council. 文中集中批评了每周工作次数差异这个论据，列举的可能性很好，具体，贴切；但是有additional trucks 这个论据却没有充分展开


Finally, the survey results as reported are vague to support any firm conclusion that the overall people’s true reflection. Firstly, we are not formed how many people were surveyed respond and not respond with an exactly data in the last year's town survey. Maybe the questionnaires are all faculty of the EZ's relatives, or friends, or the respondents are the client of EZ collects and these people are not representative of the overall population of the resident.很好。 Then the result is not convincing indeed. Secondly, the people who agreed with EZ's satisfied performance maybe change their attitude from its rising month’s fee and changeless services. Additionally, lacking information rely on the statistical survey of ABC collect, which is unreasoned to concludes that EZ's performance is better and the conclusion is neither sound nor persuasive.


Not only does the conclusion leaves out of key issues, but also cites in the statement, which does not substantiate the arguer claims. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all alternatives before the final decision made by the Walnut Grove's town council.结尾的开头用了一个很个性的批驳倒装句，赞

ldongxpUID: 2311083

By XP

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove's town council should continue to use EZ Disposal albeit EZ recently raised its monthly fee to $2,500 per month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. To substantiate the evidence, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC collects only once and EZ will increase its amount of trucks. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey to prove EZ’s exceptional and satisfied service. [however] The analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows.


To begin with, the most egregious reasoning error in the letter is the fallacy of hasty generalization. The arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's town council continues using EZ Disposal could satisfy the resident on its act of collecting trash twice a week and increasing more trucks. However, there is limited information about the ABC collects which equally possible has the exceptional services. In other words, the argument overlooks many other possible conditions that the ABC collects also arranged to increase its trucks and provide ascendant services. Except of ABC collects trash only once a week, we are told anything else about it，such as its credit registers, disposal technology...etc. Comparing with the factor Walnut Grove's town had used EZ for ten years; it is equally possible that the council and residents understand little about ABC collects’ unknown benefits to attain the similar satisfaction. Additionally, maybe there are many other companies that collect trash in town, who charges much less than the two companies. Without ruling out the above possibilities, the arguer simply suggests that they should continue use EZ, is certainly groundless. [结构不错]


Secondly, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week and ABC collects only once as a premise to substantiate the conclusion, but it is unfair to infer based on the comparison between EZ collects and ABC collects. Perhaps the Walnut Grove town is enough to maintain the clean habitation by trashing only once a week on the base of its limited area and few residents. For most instances, perhaps it is unnecessary and a lavish behavior for clean twice a week. What’s more, the monthly fee of EZ is raised from $2,000 to $2,500 recently and ABC's fee is still $2,000. From the limited data we are not offered any convincing information to realize the true cause of EZ’s rising. Maybe the resident of Walnut Grove town can not accept the change, but the arguer does not support any reasoned evidence about the attitude of the people.[ 这些放在这里作用不大的说]The arguer also should consider that whether it is acceptable by the finance status of Walnut Grove's town council.


Finally, the survey results as reported are vague to support any firm conclusion that the overall people’s true reflection. Firstly, we are not informed how many people were surveyed respond and not respond with an exactly data in the last year's town survey. [可以换换说法，不要老information，inform, 比如，the speaker fails to provide evidence that blahlbah...] Maybe the questionnaires are all faculty of the EZ's relatives, or friends, or the respondents are the client of EZ collects and these people are not representative of the overall population of the resident.[good] Then the result is not convincing indeed. Secondly, the people who agreed with EZ's satisfied performance maybe change their attitude from its rising month’s fee and changeless services. Additionally, lacking information rely on the statistical survey of ABC collect, which is unreasoned to concludes that EZ's performance is better and the conclusion is neither sound nor persuasive.[这句结构太复杂，动词多，觉得有点别扭，或许是我习惯简单句吧，呵呵]


Not only does the conclusion leaves out of key issues, but also cites in the statement, which does not substantiate the arguer claims. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all alternatives before the final decision made by the Walnut Grove's town council.

[Shalonbas的argu我市比较推崇的，你按他的做，肯定不错，加油]

shalonbasUID: 2184474

[By Shalonbas]

Argument17 [0710G-小猪快跑小组]第2次作业 by Shania

Argument17    字数：619    不限时     日期：2007-7-19 12:10:30

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove's town council should continue use EZ Disposal albeit EZ recently raised its monthly fee to $2,500 per month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. To substantiate the evidence, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week but [while] ABC collects only once and EZ will increase its amount of trucks. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey to prove EZ’s exceptional and satisfied service. [转折一下更好] The analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows. [比上一次的开头漂亮多了，怒赞！]

To begin with, the most egregious [MS你很喜欢用这个词，呵呵] reasoning error in the letter is the fallacy of hasty generalization. The arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's town council continues using EZ Disposal could satisfy [continues & could satisfy, 两个谓语了。。。] the resident on its act of collecting trash twice a week and increasing more trucks. However, there is limited information about the ABC collects which equally possible has [provides] the exceptional services. In other words, the argument overlooks many other possible conditions that the ABC collects also arranged to increase its trucks and provide ascendant services. Except of [后面是句子，所以用Except that] ABC collects trash only once a week, we are told anything [nothing] else about it，such as its credit registers, disposal technology…[用一个’逗号’就可以了]etc. Comparing with the factor Walnut Grove's town had used EZ for ten years; it is equally possible [又是一个equally possible，可以考虑换一下的，呵呵] that the council and resident understand little about ABC collects’ unknown benefits to attain the similar satisfy. [这句话中提到resident可能不知道是对的，但不应该说council也不晓得，毕竟你是在为council说话，这样做反而不合情理] Additionally, maybe there are many other companies that collect trash in town, who charges much less than the [abovementioned] two companies. Without ruling out the above possibilities, the arguer simply suggests that they should continue use EZ, is certainly groundless. [这句话意思没问题，但语法上不对。改成: Without ruling out the above possibilities, the arguer’s simple suggestion that they should continually use EZ, is certainly groundless.]

Secondly, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week and [用while吧，有对比的意思在里面] ABC collects only once as a premise to substantiate the conclusion, but it is unfair to infer on the comparison between EZ collects and ABC collects. Perhaps the Walnut Grove town is enough [是什么enough呢？enough本身不能修饰town吧，你可以加一个modernized之类的词，呵呵；再或者，直接把enough改为able] to maintain the clean habitation by trashing only once a week on the base of its limited area and few residents. For most instances, perhaps it is unnecessary and a lavish behavior for clean twice a week. What’s more, the monthly fee of EZ is raised from $2,000 to $2,500 recently and ABC's fee is still $2,000. From the limited data we are not offered any convincing information to realize the true cause of EZ’s rising. Maybe the resident of Walnut Grove town can not accept the change, but the arguer does not support any reasoned evidence about the attitude of the people. The arguer also should consider that whether it is acceptable by the finance status of Walnut Grove's town council. [不得不承认，没有考虑政府财政状况是个很好的理由，但问题是，这句话和本段的主旨有啥关系？]

Finally, the survey results as reported are vague to support any firm conclusion that the overall people’s true reflection. Firstly, we are not formed [informed] how many people were surveyed [这两个词去掉吧，不然该句就不对了] respond and [did] not respond with an exactly data in the last year's town survey. Maybe the questionnaires are all faculty of the EZ's relatives, or friends, or the respondents are the client of EZ collects and these people are not representative of the overall population of the resident. Then the result is not convincing indeed. [批驳样本] Secondly, the people who agreed with EZ's satisfied [修饰performance的话，用satisfactory更合适] performance maybe change their attitude from [due to] its rising month’s fee and changeless services. Additionally, lacking information rely on the statistical survey of ABC collect, which is unreasoned to concludes that EZ's performance is better and the conclusion is neither sound nor persuasive. [这个句子MS有问题啊~~~]

Not only does the conclusion leaves out of key issues, but also cites in the statement, which does not substantiate the arguer claims [很有创意的倒装，可惜also后面的句子有问题]. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all alternatives before the final decision made by the Walnut Grove's town council.

[和第一篇相比，完全就是质的变化，很赞！
既然你已经看了版上“Argument就应该这样写”，那我就不对批驳理由做什么评价了，呵呵，实际上我自己现在都有些矛盾。
在结构上，我的感觉是，主要东西都出来了，但是你在写作的时候有点走入另一个极端，就是什么都想面面俱到，结果写到后来都些不知重点在哪了。比方说，除了正文第一段外，二三两段的开头和结尾句意思都相差的比较远。与其伤其十指，不如断其一指，所以我建议你干脆一段就盯着一个问题使劲说，然后该段再呼应一下本段TS，这样也许更有力度。
语言方面，可以看出你的词汇量肯定是够了，envying。不过在写长句子的时候还是有些容易犯小错误，最值得注意的一点是，不管你怎么用从句或倒装，一个句子一定不能出现多个谓语结构了，呵呵，就这些吧。
PS,楼上两位说得都很在理啊，互相学习。
]

[ 本帖最后由 shalonbas 于 2007-7-28 18:15 编辑 ]