argument17

sheldenUID: 2338299

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: 424          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-20 17:28:27

In this memo, the author suggests to continue using EZ Disposal, having the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for past ten years, instead of ABC, which the government chooses with the factor of price. To bolster his suggestion, the author points out that the frequency for EZ to collect trash is higher than ABC and more trucks it would have in the future. Also he cites that 80 percent of respondents last year satisfied with EZ performance. However, the effectivity of reasoning of this article is weakened by several logical fallacies.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the higher frequency, the better quality. But it is totally possible that the reason why EZ provide twice service due to its low ability to do the work that other company can deal with by once a week. Moreover, the cheap price leads us to suspect its service quality further-the truth of the low price may be not really worthwhile considering its possible poor ability. All in all, if the author could not collect more information about the reason why EZ offer this low price and higher service frequency, haste conclusion will be drawn.

Secondly, the author makes a logical mistake that he thinks the number of the trucks can represent the level of a company, which is unpersuasive at all. There is a probability that half of the EZ's trucks cannot work well which is the reason why it ordered additional trucks. Furthermore, if EZ have to spend more trucks and other instruments to do the same thing as ABC, it will show its lack of effectivity. So without the more details about the using situation of these trucks, the author could not persuade me that EZ is better.

Finally, although 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's service, without the data of ABC, we could not know which one is better. Perhaps, all the customers who have had a contract with ABC highly praised its performance that means that there would be 100% of respondents agree they were satisfied which the number is higher than EZ. Moreover, the there are little detail about the survey which leads it unconvincing.

To summarize, this letter is unsubstantiated and half-baked as it stands. To better support his suggestion, the author should provide more information about EZ's low price and the order for additional trucks. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment on this letter until the author supply the details about the survey and the response of the customers react to ABC.

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the higher frequency, the better quality简单明确，很好，或者把quality 改成service呢. But it is totally possible that the reason why EZ provides twice service due to its low ability to do the work that other company can deal with by once a week. Moreover, the cheap price leads us to suspect its service quality further-the truth of the low price may be not really worthwhiletruth worthwhile or price worthwhile? considering its possible poor ability. All in all, if the author could not collect more information about the reason why EZ offer this low price and higher service frequency, haste conclusion will be drawn.

Secondly, the author makes a logical mistake that he thinks the number of the trucks can represent the level of a company, which is unpersuasive at all. There is a probability that half of the EZ's trucks cannot work well which is the reason why it ordered additional trucks. Furthermore, if EZ have to spend more trucks and other instruments to do the same thing as ABC, it will show its lack of effectivity. So without the more details about the using situation of these trucks, the author could not persuade me that EZ is better.

Finally, although 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's service, without the data of ABC, we could not know which one is better. Perhaps, all the customers who have had a contract with ABC highly praised its performance that means that there would be 100% of respondents agree they were satisfied which the number is higher than EZ. Moreover, the there are little detail about the survey which leads it unconvincing.感觉这段论证得稍微浅了点，可以先指出80%未必有代表性，并且在该地市十年期间都是用得EZ,如果如你所举的例子里面，是其他地方的居民100%满意的话，也不一定代表Walnut Grove的居民会满意，对吧？

To summarize, this letter is unsubstantiated and half-baked as it stands. To better support his suggestion, the author should provide more information about EZ's low price and the order for additional trucks. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment on this letter until the author supply the details about the survey and the response of the customers react to ABC.
套路已经很成熟了，中间有些具体的分析要加以注意
快要考试了吧，我也是哦，加油加油！

houyanchunUID: 2432949

argument17
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: 424          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-20 17:28:27

In this memo, the author suggests to continue using EZ Disposal, having the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for past ten years, instead of ABC, which the government chooses with the factor of price. To bolster his suggestion, the author points out that the frequency for EZ to collect trash is higher than ABC and more trucks it would have in the future. Also he cites that 80 percent of respondents last year satisfied with EZ performance. However, the effectivity of reasoning of this article is weakened by several logical fallacies.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the higher frequency, the better quality. But it is totally possible that the reason why EZ provide twice service (is)due to its low ability to do the work(so) that other company can deal with by once a week. Moreover, the cheap price leads us to suspect its service quality further-the truth of the low price may be not really worthwhile considering its possible poor ability. All in all, if the author could not collect more information about the reason why EZ offer this low price(EZ是高价？) and higher service frequency, haste conclusion will be drawn.

Secondly, the author makes a logical mistake that he thinks the number of the trucks can represent the （service’s）level of a company, which is unpersuasive at all. There is a probability that half of the EZ's trucks cannot work well which is the reason why it ordered additional trucks. Furthermore, if EZ have to spend more trucks and other instruments to do the same thing as ABC, it will show its lack of effectivity. So without the more details about the using situation of these trucks, the author could not persuade me that EZ is better.

Finally, although 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's service, without the data of ABC, we could not know which one is better. Perhaps, all the customers who have had a contract with ABC highly praised its performance that means that there would be 100% of respondents agree they were satisfied which the number is higher than EZ. Moreover, the there are little detail about the survey which leads it unconvincing.

To summarize, this letter is unsubstantiated and half-baked as it stands. To better support his suggestion, the author should provide more information about EZ's low price and the order for additional trucks. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment on this letter until the author supply the details about the survey and the response of the customers react to ABC.
抓问题准确，结构清楚。限时写作到如此程度，羡慕呀。呵呵。加油。