argument17 [0710G +U Aug小组]第9次作业

cofeebeanUID: 2289548

In this argument, the arguer concludes the town council is mistaken in advocating choosing ABC rather than EZ for trash collecting. To support his opinion, the arguer cites a survey in last year and some other facts to show EZ provides better service than ABC can. As it stands, the argument suffers several crucial fallacies as following.

First of all, the arguer indicates EZ serves better than ABC just by comparing their collecting times and the numble of trucks because the quality of serves is not necessarily determined by these two facts. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects once. However, maybe it is enough to collect clearly and thoroughly once a week so that it’s a waste to do twice. EZ has ordered additional trucks on the same base of 20 trucks as ABC. Will these additional trucks be certainly used for Walnut Grove town? The arguer does not provide evidence to assure the usage of additional trucks so that we cannot exclude other possibilities. Perhaps EZ wants to explore new market to extend its business, and these new trucks are more likely to serve in other towns. On the other side, the arguer fails to consider whether a fleet of 20 trucks can afford the serves in this town and provide satisfactory collection.

Another flaw that weakens the argument is the arguer cites a vague survey to support EZ’s service. It is mentioned that 80% of respondents, not 80% of residents, were satisfactory with EZ. The auger fails to point out how many residents were surveyed but didn’t respond. If, for instance, 1000 residents were involved in the poll, but no more than 450 echoed, the result of this town survey obviously cannot represent the real attitude of most residents. Furthermore, the respondents in the survey only agreed they were satisfied with EZ last year when EZ only demanded 2000 dollars per month. It is hard to predit their attitude when the monthly fee increase 500 dollars. Additionally, We are not informed who conducted it, how the poll was organized. Unless these questions are answered, the results are worthless as evidence to lend validity to the argument.

The auger fails to consider other reasons underlying the town council’s advocating of switching from EZ to ABC. The financial situation facing the town authorities is crucial and decisive to choose the server. Maybe the government has more important projects such as preventing flu to invest than the extra expenditure on the increased fee of EZ. For the sake of all the residents, it’s reasonable for the town council to take all factors into accounts before distributing expenditure.

To sum up, the argument is neither well reasoned nor sound. To make it logically acceptable, the auguer should provide more information about two companies’ service, and take the city council’s considerations  into account.

wm23UID: 2245087

In this argument, the arguer concludes the town council is mistaken in advocating choosing ABC rather than EZ for trash collecting. To support his opinion, the arguer cites a survey in last year and some other facts to show EZ provides better service than ABC can. As it stands, the argument suffers several crucial fallacies as following.

First of all, the arguer indicates EZ serves better than ABC just by comparing their collecting times and the numble(number) of trucks because the quality of serves is not necessarily determined by these two facts. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects once. However, maybe it is enough to collect clearly and thoroughly once a week so that it’s a waste to do twice. EZ has ordered additional trucks on the same base of 20 trucks as ABC. Will these additional trucks be certainly used for Walnut Grove town? (这点找的好，我没想到，学习。)The arguer does not provide evidence to assure the usage of additional trucks so that we cannot exclude other possibilities. Perhaps EZ wants to explore new market to extend its business, and these new trucks are more likely to serve in other towns. On the other side, （记得On the other side好像是表转折的。）the arguer fails to consider whether a fleet of 20 trucks can afford the serves in this town and provide satisfactory collection.

Another flaw that weakens the argument is the arguer cites a vague survey to support EZ’s service. It is mentioned that 80% of respondents, not 80% of residents, were satisfactory with EZ. The auger fails to point out how many residents were surveyed but didn’t respond. If, for instance, 1000 residents were involved in the poll, but no more than 450 echoed, the result of this town survey obviously cannot represent the real attitude of most residents. Furthermore, the respondents in the survey only agreed they were satisfied with EZ last year when EZ only demanded 2000 dollars per month. It is hard to predit their attitude when the monthly fee increase 500 dollars. Additionally, We are not informed who conducted it, how the poll was organized. Unless these questions are answered, the results are worthless as evidence to lend validity to the argument.

The auger fails to consider other reasons underlying the town council’s advocating of switching from EZ to ABC. The financial situation facing the town authorities is crucial and decisive to choose the server（用Service就可以了）. Maybe the government has more important projects such as preventing flu to invest than the extra expenditure on the increased fee of EZ. For the sake of all the residents, it’s reasonable for the town council to take all factors into accounts before distributing expenditure.

To sum up, the argument is neither well reasoned nor sound. To make it logically acceptable, the auguer should provide more information about two companies’ service, and take the city council’s considerations  into account.       （加句关于调查的总结好点。）

总体来说，语言应用能力还是很好 。
点找的也很到位，能找到的都找到了。有一个点我当时根本没想到，刚看到时有大彻大悟的感觉，呵呵。最后的总结我个人认为应该把前面驳的三个点都提一下。不过还是一篇好文章，学习学习。