argument17 [0710G +U小组] --xiefen0223--第九次作业

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

题目：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."
字数：363          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-08-03

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Walnut Grove' town council is mistaken on the issue of changing the EZ Disposal to ABC waste. To support his view of keeping using EZ, he points out that the EZ collects trash twice a week, which indicates the monthly fee is higher than ABC's for this reason. Besides that, he cites the fact that the EZ will have more trucks and even provides a local survey. However, careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless the recommendation is.
Firstly, the arguer takes it for granted that the town council turn to ABC Waste because EZ recently raised its monthly fee. So later he provides so many evidences, which I take a leave to doubt, to support that the EZ is worth such a higher fee. But there are no specific claims from the town council to prove that the switch is for the price. Rather than price, maybe the environment pollution is the council's consideration when ABC uses resource cycling methods to deal with the waste but EZ still use the old ways.
Secondly, the arguer reasons that the EZ collects trash twice a week so it is worth the higher price. But whether the residents need the trash collection twice a week? if it is not then there will be no necessary for the EZ doing it, not to say paying more for the overdue trash collection. Still, if the 20 trucks is enough to collect the trash, more trucks available have nothing to do with the residents, as well as beyond the council's concern.
Last but not least, based on a last year's survey which shows 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ performance, it can not be concluded that it provides exceptional service. The arguer does not say how many people responded the survey and what background they are from. If it is not a good sample then it can not reveal anything meaningful to EZ's service.
Simply put, the argument is not reasonable as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should find the credible reason for the switch and take a deeper look into the compare between the two services.

ldsunUID: 2329026

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Walnut Grove' town council is mistaken on the issue of changing the EZ Disposal to ABC waste. To support his view of keeping using EZ, he points out that the EZ collects trash twice a week, which indicates the monthly fee is higher than ABC's for this reason. Besides that, he cites the fact that the EZ will have more trucks and even provides a local survey. However, careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless the recommendation is.

Firstly, the arguer takes it for granted that the town council turn to ABC Waste because EZ recently raised its monthly fee. So later he provides so many evidences[evidence], which I take a leave to doubt, to support that the EZ is worth such a higher fee. But there are no specific claims from the town council to prove that the switch is for[because of] the price. Rather than price, maybe the environment pollution is the council's consideration when ABC uses resource cycling methods to deal with the waste but EZ still use the old ways.[这一段指出的错误我认为是主要错误，能找出这个错误这篇文章就很好了。]

Secondly, the arguer reasons that the[去掉the ] EZ collects trash twice a week so it is worth the higher price. But whether the residents need the trash collection twice a week? if it is not then there will be no necessary for the EZ doing it, not to say paying more for the overdue trash collection. Still, if the 20 trucks is enough to collect the trash, more trucks available have nothing to do with the residents, as well as beyond the council's concern.[这一段的证明方法还是挺常见的，我觉得有点不是很有力，你考虑下，EZ并不是开始collect twice之后才开始提升价格啊，所以collect twice并不能做为证据证明提升价格是合理的。]

Last but not least, based on a last year's survey which shows 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ performance, it can not be concluded that it provides exceptional service. The arguer does not say how many people responded the survey and what background they are from. If it is not a good sample then it can not reveal anything meaningful to EZ's service.[这一段都这样证明，没什么说的，掌握这类错误的语法就好。]

Simply put, the argument is not reasonable as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should find the credible reason for the switch and take a deeper look into the compare between the two services.

这篇文章估计大家都很熟悉，但如果能把这篇文章写得好了，估计很有意义。所以如果有空还是多多自己润色下了。

[ 本帖最后由 ldsun 于 2007-8-4 23:23 编辑 ]