argument17 [kb9.11]第三次作业

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

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: 412          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-17 19:42:20

In this argument, the author contradict the conclusion of Walnut Grove by listing the evidence that EZ is much more suitable for Walnut Grove other than ABC. These evidence at first appears support the conclusion however not convincing for further inspection.

First of all, the author offers the evidence that EZ colects trash twice a week in opposed as ABC which colects trach only once. However, this judgement does not consider the actual demand of Wanlnut Grove. It is possible that Walnut Grove is just a small town with a few peopel and once a week collecting trash is indeed enough for it.  Additionally, this judgement  also does not access the potential reason for EZ to collect twice a week. EZ probobally has trucks with less capacity than ABC so that it cannot completing the tasks by only once. Without analysis and access these factors, the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC as the choice of Walnuct Grove is dubious at best.

Furthermore, the author mentions that EZ will order additional trucks to run their business. Indeed it means that EZ would possiblely enlarge their business after this additon, the benefit that could bring to Walnut Grove, as just one of its business partner, is too limited to consider it as a advantage over ABC. It is possible that EZ is going to focus its business on other areas which could avoid the competion with ABC because they have not done as well as ABC. Only by accessing the benefit that the additional trucks brings to Walnuct in reality can the author strenthen his/her argument.

Moreover, although there are 80% of respondents that are satisfied with EZ's performance, it is not convincing that choosing EZ is a better choice. Since the repondents in the survey are generally those who are already satisfied or prone to satisfy with EZ's performance, it might elude many other customers who have strong dissatification that refuse to provide any comments to EZ. For these customers, they might just change to another company to have further colleting trash business. Even if it is indeed true that 80% of customers have satisfied with EZ, it is entirely possible that ABC has a even more rate of satisfication. Without comparing the rate of satisfication  between ABC and EZ,  it is too hasty to conlude that EZ is better than ABC.

In summary, the author commit several fallacies to reach the conclusion the EZ is a better choice than ABC. To strenthen this argument, the author should compare these two comany in details of their services and find the one most suitable for Walnuts. Without. Without these consideration mentioned above, this argument is rather weak as it stands.

[ 本帖最后由 qiuzirumeng 于 2007-8-19 11:42 编辑 ]

goldzincUID: 2378390

In this argument, the author contradict(contradicts) the conclusion of Walnut Grove by listing the evidence that EZ is much more suitable for Walnut Grove other than ABC. This evidence at first(放到however前面比较好) appears (to) support the conclusion however not convincing for further inspection.

First of all, the author offers the evidence that EZ colects(collects) trash twice a week in opposed as(不知道这么用对不对) ABC which colects(collects) trach(trash) only once. However, this judgement(judgment是这么拼得，我也才知道) does not consider the actual demand of Wanlnut Grove. It is possible that Walnut Grove is just a small town with a few peopel(people) and once a week collecting trash(放到once a week 前面) is indeed enough for it.  Additionally, this judgement(judgment) also does not access the potential reason for EZ to collect twice a week. EZ probobally(probably) has trucks with less capacity than ABC so that it cannot completing the tasks by only once.(这个理由找得很好) Without analysis and access(这两个应该用动词的现在分词形式，否则在后面加介词) these factors, the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC as the choice of(说的有点怪异，用for就行了吧) Walnuct Grove is dubious at best.

Furthermore, the author mentions that EZ will order additional trucks to run their business. Indeed it means that EZ would possiblely(这回又拼错了…possibly) enlarge their business after this additon(addition),(nevertheless,) the benefit that could bring to Walnut Grove, as just one of its business partner, is too limited to consider it as a advantage over ABC. It is possible that EZ is going to focus its business on other areas which could avoid the competion with ABC because they have not done as well as ABC. Only by accessing the benefit that the additional trucks brings(bring) to Walnuct in reality can the author strenthen(strengthen) his/her argument.

Moreover, although there are 80% of respondents that are satisfied with EZ's performance, it is not convincing that choosing EZ is a better choice. Since the respondents in the survey are generally those who are already satisfied or prone to satisfy with EZ's performance, it might elude many other customers who have strong dissatisfaction that refuse to provide any comments to EZ.(好理由) For these customers, they might just change to another company to have further colleting trash business.(好像不是这样吧，这句话说的有点多余) Even if it is indeed true that 80% of customers have satisfied with EZ, it is entirely possible that ABC has a even more(greater) rate of satisfaction. Without comparing the rate of satisfaction between ABC and EZ, it is too hasty to conclude that EZ is better than ABC.

In summary(可以这么说吗), the author commit several fallacies to reach the conclusion the EZ is a better choice than ABC. To strengthen this argument, the author should compare these two company in details of their services and find the one most suitable for Walnuts. Without these consideration mentioned above, this argument is rather weak as it stands.

总体来讲逻辑很顺畅，但是拼写上还是要注意。文章后半部分后面我就懒得改拼写错误了，你的satisfaction都拼错成了satisficatioin，以后要注意啊。

qiuzirumengUID: 199691

谢谢修改，每次都超时，就想赶紧写，拼写就老错，看来问题挺严重了，下次一定要注意这个问题