argument17『desperado小组』第三次作业 by pmsf

流淌的月光UID: 2414493

题目
17.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."
Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

提纲
1收集一次不代表效率低，有可能收集得更仔细更彻底。
2没有必然联系。没有证据说明卡车数量不够。卡车数量多不说明回收工作好。如果同时使用的少，同样没有效果。
3调查是怎样组织的, 是不是代表民意, 样品的有效性.没有ABC的介绍。

正文

In this argument, the arguer recommends that we should continue using EZ. To support the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week and has ordered more trucks. In addition, the arguer cites the survey that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundness it is.

On the one hand, the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week does not mean that they are more efficient than ABC Waste, it is possible that their work is better. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to drawn any conclusion at all.

One the second hand, the arguer does not establish a causal relationship between ordering additional trucks by EZ and providing good service. There are no evidence that the number of EZ's trucks is not sufficient for them to complete their work. More trucks does not mean recycling better than ABC, on the contrary, it might indicate low efficiency.

Finally, we are told nothing about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represent  the public opinions. It is possible that the number is big enough or the question was not asked in a good way. What's more, the survey was conducted last year, we do not know weather it still represent public opinions today. In the end, there are almost no information about ABC.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands, to make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the service provided by EZ. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding ABC.

PursueDreamUID: 2426799

In this argument, the arguer recommends that we should continue using EZ. To support the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week and has ordered more trucks. In addition, the arguer cites the survey that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundness it is.

On the one hand, the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week does not mean that they are more efficient than ABC Waste, it is possible that their work is better. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to drawn any conclusion at all.

One the second(the other) hand, the arguer does not establish a causal relationship between ordering additional trucks by EZ and providing good service. There are no evidence that the number of EZ's trucks is not sufficient for them to complete their work. More trucks does not mean recycling better than ABC, on the contrary, it might indicate low efficiency.

Finally, we are told nothing about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represent  the public opinions. It is possible that the number is big enough or the question was not asked in a good way. What's more, the survey was conducted last year, we do not know weather it still represent public opinions today. In the end, there are almost no information about ABC.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands, to make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the service provided by EZ. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding ABC.

似乎没有找出来什么大错误。感觉结尾有点模式化。

summer330UID: 2175256

In this argument, the arguer recommends that we should continue using EZ. To support the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week and has ordered more trucks. In addition, the arguer cites the survey that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundness it is.

On the one hand, the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week does not mean that they are more efficient than ABC Waste, it is possible that their work is better. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to drawn any conclusion at all.

One the second(other) hand, the arguer does not establish a causal relationship between ordering additional trucks by EZ and providing good service. There are(is) no evidence that the number of EZ's trucks is not sufficient for them to complete their work. More trucks does not mean recycling better(是不是应该换个词) than ABC, on the contrary, it might indicate low efficiency.

Finally, we are told nothing(not informed) about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represent  the public opinions. It is possible that the number is big(large) enough or the question was not asked in a good way. What's more, the survey was conducted last year, we do not know weather it still represent public opinions today. In the end, there are almost no information about ABC.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands, to make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the service provided by EZ. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding ABC.