argument17 [0710G +U Aug小组]第9次作业

warlockUID: 2364623

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 EZ's performance."
WORDS: 321          TIME: 00:29:50          DATE: 2007-8-2 下午 08:14:09

In this letter, the author recommends the Walnut Grove's (WG's) town council to continue using EZ Disposal. To support his standpoint, the author lists such evidences: 1, EZ collects trash twice a week, two times more than ABC Disposal. 2，EZ has ordered twenty additional trucks. 3, A last year's survey shows that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ. The author commits some fallacies.

Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the priority of the EZ's method that collects trash twice a week. Suppose WG locates in a cold area, and trash disposal is not so crucial so that collecting once a week demonstrates little difference from twice a week. As a result, taking into account the raise of the fee, the council would certainly advocate switching from EZ to ABC.

Secondly, the proof that EZ has added a fleet of 20 trucks makes no sense to convince us of choosing EZ. On one hand, the usage of these additional trucks is not provided in this letter. It is possible that these trucks are used as transportations for cargos. And even these trucks are used for trash collect; there is no proof to assure WG's town council the improvement in the efficiency of trash collection.

Thirdly, there are some questions to the survey. The author must figure out how many civilians take part in the survey, the proportion of the respondents to these refusing to answer the survey, and the identification of these respondents. Lacking these important figures, the survey is not sufficient. Even though the survey is enough, the attitude of these respondents to ABC is needed for comparison. Maybe they satisfied with ABC much more than EZ.

In conclusion, the author fails to provide us with enough proof. In order to make the recommendation more convincible, he should first indicate the exact information of the survey and then show the priority of the methods implemented by EZ.

ddbearUID: 2275294

In this letter, the author recommends the Walnut Grove's (WG's) town council to continue using EZ Disposal. To support his standpoint, the author lists such evidences: 1, EZ collects trash twice a week, two times more than ABC Disposal. 2，EZ has ordered twenty additional trucks. （再看看题~ 20辆是已有的，不是twenty more）3, A last year's survey shows that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ. The author commits some fallacies.

Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the priority of the EZ's method that collects trash twice a week. Suppose WG locates in a cold area, and trash disposal is not so crucial so（去掉） that collecting once a week demonstrates（这个词有点大吧） little difference from twice a week. As a result, taking into account the raise of the fee, the council would certainly advocate switching from EZ to ABC.

Secondly, the proof that EZ has added a fleet of 20 trucks makes no sense to convince us of choosing EZ. On one hand, the usage of these additional trucks is not provided in this letter. It is possible that these trucks are used as transportations for cargos. And even these trucks are used for trash collect; there is no proof to assure WG's town council the improvement in the efficiency of trash collection.

Thirdly, there are some questions to the survey. The author must figure out how many civilians take part in the survey, the proportion of the respondents to these refusing to answer the survey, and the identification of these respondents. Lacking these important figures, the survey is not sufficient. （你这句话也不sufficient）Even though the survey is enough, the attitude of these respondents to ABC is needed for comparison. Maybe they satisfied with ABC much more than EZ.

In conclusion, the author fails to provide us with enough proof. In order to make the recommendation more convincible, he should first indicate the exact information of the survey and then show the priority of the methods implemented by EZ.


很理解限时的情况下，写不了很多。不过，321字恐怕很难让ets信服吧~  加油！加油！

cofeebeanUID: 2289548

In this letter, the author recommends the Walnut Grove's (WG's) town council to continue using EZ Disposal. To support his standpoint, the author lists such evidences: 1, EZ collects trash twice a week, two[one] times more than ABC Disposal. 2，EZ has ordered twenty additional trucks. 3, A last year's survey shows that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ. The author commits some fallacies.
Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the priority of the EZ's method[service更好] that collects trash twice a week. Suppose WG locates in a cold area, and trash disposal is not so crucial so that collecting once a week demonstrates little difference from twice a week.[这句话写的很好] As a result, taking into account the raise of the fee, the council would certainly advocate switching from EZ to ABC.
Secondly, the proof that EZ has added a fleet of 20 trucks makes no sense to convince us of choosing EZ. On one hand, the usage of these additional trucks is not provided in this letter. It is possible that these trucks are used as transportations for cargos. And even these trucks are used for trash collect;[用逗号即可] there is no proof to assure WG's town council the improvement in the efficiency of trash collection.
Thirdly, there are some questions to the survey. The author must figure out how many civilians[用residents更好] take[时态注意] part in the survey, the proportion of the respondents to these[those指代更通用吧] refusing to answer the survey, and the identification of these respondents[身份的关系并不是很大]. Lacking these important figures, the survey is not sufficient. Even though the survey is enough [in providing these information], the attitude of these respondents to ABC is needed for comparison. Maybe they satisfied with ABC much more than EZ.
In conclusion, the author fails to provide us with enough proof. In order to make the recommendation more convincible, he should first indicate the exact information of the survey and then show the priority of the methods implemented by EZ.
[基本的错误点已覆盖，但来不及深入挖掘。另外语言看来也存在跟我一样的问题，一限时就经不住推敲，所以这两天还是要多花时间在表达和基本句式的熟悉上。加油加油！]