Argument17 【07-10G Superstar大帖】7月26日作文

desirermimiUID: 2108321

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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 $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. 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 EG's performance."
WORDS: 654        TIME: 01:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-26 15:43:25

提纲：
1．  Firstly, the author fails to demonstrate that the WG residents care more about the frequency of trash collection than the charge. Maybe once is in enough. Moreover, they may care more about the service such as the way of disposal trash., maybe WG still adopts the traditional way to disposal trash which pollutes the environment very seriously, while the ABC adopts the new technology way in which the trash could be processed by sort and then recycle.
2．  Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks cannot support that EZ will offer better service to the residents than ABC. Maybe ABC uses all of its 20 trucks for WG but WG does not. Maybe not offer to the WG but for expand themselves to other towns,
3．  Thirdly, the survey that most respondents were satisfied with the EZ’ s performance last year provides little support to the author’s recommendation. First, the number of residents surveyed; Second, whether the respondents are representative of overall residents, especially of WG people. Third, whether ABC’s performance will be more satisfying than EZ’s.


The letter recommends that Walnut Grove (WG) should contract with EZ continuingly, rather than ABC. To justify this recommendation, the author cites the statistics about the trash-collecting frequency of two companies and the number of trucks the two own for trash. Moreover, the author provides an survey for proving the satisfied percentage in the residents. While the argument has some merits, it suffers from several crucial problems.

Firstly, the author turned on the assumption that more collect times are better for the residents, so he/she cited the fact that EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC. However, there is no evidence offered to substantiate this assumption. Maybe the residents do not care about the frequency of trash-collecting, once a week is enough for they and twice is too waste. Moreover, they may care more about the service such as the way of disposal trash. It may be the case that EZ adopts the traditional way to disposal trash which pollutes the environment very seriously, while ABC adopts the new technology way in which the trash could be processed by sort and then recycled. Without considering and ruling out possibilities such as these, the author's recommendation cannot be taken seriously.

Moreover, another problem with this argument is that the author intends to support the main assumption that EZ will provide better service because it has ordered additional trucks which leads its  overall number more than ABC, are too vague and oversimplified, thus may distort the overall picture of the authenticate situation of these two companies. For example, the ABC uses all of its 20 trucks to provide trash disposal for WG residents while EZ only uses 10 trucks which would result the low services efficiency. Also, the author indicates that EG has ordered additional trucks, but fails to indicate whether the additional truck would use for improving WG residents' trash disposal. It's possible that EG add the number of trucks in order to expand its business to other towns but not for WG residents. Lacking the detail analysis of the special situation, the author cannot assume that the  EZ service is better than ABC.

Thirdly, the survey result that most respondents are satisfied with EZ’ s performance last year provide little support to the author’ s recommendation. The author fails to provide assurance that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whom the EZ provide trash disposal for. There is no detail information about how many respondents in this survey and how many are WG residents, who will effect the final decision of choosing trash disposal companies. Moreover, even if the satisfaction survey is representative, the author could not say  the EZ’ s satisfaction is must higher than ABC because of lacking ABC’ satisfaction statistics. Lacking such information, the author cannot make the convincing argument based on that survey.

Even assuming EZ is indeed better than ABC in provide better service and worth the $ 2, 500 a month, the author’s recommendation that WG should continue EZ when processing the trash raise one serious problem in itself. The author unfairly assumes that no alternative firm is available. It is entirely possible that some other firms rather than the aforementioned two firms would provide much better service and proper price in disposal trash. If so, the author’s recommendation might amount to poor advice for EG residents who want to choose a better company.

In sum, the author fails to validate the conclusion that the town council should continue visiting EZ. To make it logically acceptable, the author should demonstrate that the residents real demand in trash disposal and the details purpose of EZ’ s additional trucks. In addition, the author should provide more concrete evidence concerns the contrastive satisfaction the WG’ s residents have towards the two companies and other. Especially, he/she should provide information concerning the service and price condition in some alternative firms, to rule out the abovementioned possibility that would undermine the author’ s claim.

laura001UID: 2295927

ARGUMENT17 - 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 $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. 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 EG's performance."
WORDS: 654        TIME: 01:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-26 15:43:25

提纲：
1．  Firstly, the author fails to demonstrate that the WG residents care more about the frequency of trash collection than the charge. Maybe once is in enough. Moreover, they may care more about the service such as the way of disposal trash., maybe WG still adopts the traditional way to disposal trash which pollutes the environment very seriously, while the ABC adopts the new technology way in which the trash could be processed by sort and then recycle.
2．  Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks cannot support that EZ will offer better service to the residents than ABC. Maybe ABC uses all of its 20 trucks for WG but WG does not. Maybe not offer to the WG but for expand themselves to other towns,
3．  Thirdly, the survey that most respondents were satisfied with the EZ’ s performance last year provides little support to the author’s recommendation. First, the number of residents surveyed; Second, whether the respondents are representative of overall residents, especially of WG people. Third, whether ABC’s performance will be more satisfying than EZ’s.


The letter recommends that Walnut Grove (WG) should contract with EZ continuingly, rather than ABC. To justify this recommendation, the author cites the statistics about the trash-collecting frequency of two companies and the number of trucks the two own for trash. Moreover, the author provides an survey for proving the satisfied percentage in the residents. While the argument has some merits, it suffers from several crucial problems.

Firstly, the author turned on the assumption that more collect times are better for the residents, so he/she cited the fact that EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC. However, there is no evidence offered to substantiate this assumption. Maybe the residents do not care about the frequency of trash-collecting, once a week is enough for they(them) and twice is too waste. Moreover, they may care more about the service such as the way of disposal trash. It may be the case that EZ adopts the traditional way to disposal trash which pollutes the environment very seriously, while ABC adopts the new technology way in which the trash could be processed by sort and then recycled. Without considering and ruling out possibilities such as these, the author's recommendation cannot be taken seriously.

Moreover, another problem with this argument is that the author intends to support the main assumption that EZ will provide better service because it has ordered additional trucks which leads its  overall number more than ABC, are too vague and oversimplified, thus may distort the overall picture of the authenticate situation of these two companies. For example, the ABC uses all of its 20 trucks to provide trash disposal for WG residents while EZ only uses 10 trucks which would result the low services efficiency. Also, the author indicates that EG has ordered additional trucks, but fails to indicate whether the additional truck would use for improving WG residents' trash disposal. It's possible that EG add the number of trucks in order to expand its business to other towns but not for WG residents. Lacking the detail analysis of the special situation, the author cannot assume that the  EZ service is better than ABC.

Thirdly, the survey result (the result of survey)that most respondents are satisfied with EZ’ s performance last year provide little support to the author’ s recommendation. The author fails to provide assurance that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whom the EZ provide trash disposal for. There is no detail information about how many respondents in this survey and how many are WG residents, who will effect the final decision of choosing trash disposal companies. Moreover, even if the satisfaction survey is representative, the author could not say  the EZ’ s satisfaction is must higher than ABC because of lacking ABC’ satisfaction statistics. Lacking such information, the author cannot make the convincing argument based on that survey.

Even assuming EZ is indeed better than ABC in provide better service and worth the $ 2, 500 a month, the author’s recommendation that WG should continue EZ when processing the trash raise one serious problem in itself. The author unfairly assumes that no alternative firm is available. It is entirely possible that some other firms rather than the aforementioned two firms would provide much better service and proper price in disposal trash. If so, the author’s recommendation might amount to poor advice for EG residents who want to choose a better company.

In sum, the author fails to validate the conclusion that the town council should continue visiting EZ. To make it logically acceptable, the author should demonstrate that the residents real demand in trash disposal and the details purpose of EZ’ s additional trucks. In addition, the author should provide more concrete evidence concerns the contrastive satisfaction the WG’ s residents have towards the two companies and other. Especially, he/she should provide information concerning the service and price condition in some alternative firms, to rule out the abovementioned possibility that would undermine the author’ s claim.

这篇进步很大啊,很有北美范文的感觉, 错误也找对了.挑不出什么毛病.字数也蛮多的.  加油啊,A争取满分哦~~

[ 本帖最后由 laura001 于 2007-7-26 18:40 编辑 ]