Argument17【Aero小组】第7次作业

m2zhyUID: 2440721

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.'


In this letter, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should choose EZ Disposal as before but ABC Waste, though the fee for EZ is higher than ABC, for the reason that 1)EZ collects trash more frequent than ABC; 2)EZ has ordered additional trucks; 3) a survey shows that people were satisfied with EZ’s performance. However, these evidences are too insufficient to support the recommendation.

First of all，the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that WG is much better than ABC, for the reason that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Nevertheless, the assumption is incredible, for the arguer does not consider the town’s requirement for collecting rubbish. If Walnut Grove(WG) is a small town, it is entirely likely that once a week is enough for them, whereas twice is redundant and lavish. Or if WG is born a clean town and residents there prefer recycle the trash rather than throwing away, the need for trash collecting would be little. Similarly, the additional trucks of EZ would contribute nothing on trash collecting, for a fleet of 20 trucks might be enough for the whole town.   Because the arguer does not provide status about local trash amount, it is hard to conclude that collecting twice a week better than once, let requirement for more trucks alone.

Thirdly, a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year satisfied with EZ’s performance can support nothing about the argument, for its validity is doubtful. Lacking information about the number and communities of residents surveyed, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 100 denizens from the same community where EZ’s services happened to be high of quality were surveyed, the conclusion would be highly suspect. In addition, no evidence indicates that local denizens are not satisfied with ABC’s performance. Without ruling out these possibilities, the results of the survey are inadequate to hold the conclusion.  

Finally, even if the town indeed needs services like what EZ can provide, whether the town could finance the services is unknown. It is possible that WG’s town council advocated switch from EZ to ABC whose fee is lower partly due to its finance ability. If the town finance can not afford the raised fee of EZ, it is understandable for the town council to make the choice. Or even if they can afford it, they prefer invest limited finance expense on other more important aspects like education and medical care, rather than expend too much in trash collecting. In these cases, the arguer’s suggestion would not stand at all.

To sum up, the arguer’s evidence lends little credible support to the claim. To persuade me that the town should choose EZ rather than ABC, the arguer would need to provide more clear evidence that EZ is more suitable for the town. To better evaluate the arguer’s claim, we should need more sufficient information comparing the performance and fee of the two trash collecting companies. We also need specified status about the town including finance and rubbish situation to help make decision more benefit for local residents.

lovemxfUID: 2335206

In this letter, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should choose EZ Disposal as before but ABC Waste, though the fee for EZ is higher than ABC, for the reason that 1)EZ collects trash more frequent than ABC; 2)EZ has ordered additional trucks; 3) a survey shows that people were satisfied with EZ’s performance. However, these evidences are too insufficient to support the recommendation.

First of all，the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that WG is much better than ABC, for the reason that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Nevertheless, the assumption is incredible, for the arguer does not consider the town’s requirement for collecting rubbish. If Walnut Grove(WG) is a small town, it is entirely likely that once a week is enough for them, whereas twice is redundant and lavish. Or if WG is born a clean town and residents there prefer recycle the trash rather than throwing away, the need for trash collecting would be little. Similarly, the additional trucks of EZ would contribute nothing on trash collecting, for a fleet of 20 trucks might be enough for the whole town.   Because the arguer does not provide status about local trash amount, it is hard to conclude that collecting twice a week better than once, let requirement for more trucks alone.（为什么这段论证两个问题呢？最好一段一个问题，卡车最好放到下一段）

Thirdly, a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year satisfied with EZ’s performance can support nothing about the argument, for its validity is doubtful. Lacking information about the number and communities of residents surveyed, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 100 denizens from the same community where EZ’s services happened to be high of quality were surveyed, the conclusion would be highly suspect. In addition, no evidence indicates that local denizens are not satisfied with ABC’s performance. Without ruling out these possibilities, the results of the survey are inadequate to hold the conclusion.  

Finally, even if the town indeed needs services like what EZ can provide, whether the town could finance the services is unknown. It is possible that WG’s town council advocated switch from EZ to ABC whose fee is lower partly due to its finance ability. If the town finance can not afford the raised fee of EZ, it is understandable for the town council to make the choice. Or even if they can afford it, they prefer invest limited finance expense on other more important aspects like education and medical care, rather than expend too much in trash collecting. In these cases, the arguer’s suggestion would not stand at all.

To sum up, the arguer’s evidence lends little credible support to the claim. To persuade me that the town should choose EZ rather than ABC, the arguer would need to provide more clear evidence that EZ is more suitable for the town. To better evaluate the arguer’s claim, we should need more sufficient information comparing the performance and fee of the two trash collecting companies. We also need specified status about the town including finance and rubbish situation to help make decision more benefit for local residents.
不错好像挑不出什么错误，词汇变换的也很好。
只是第一个错误最好两个分开写

saavedroUID: 2423190

In this letter, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove’s town council should choose EZ Disposal as before but(because of还是这样好一些吧 because of ABC is waste) ABC Waste, though the fee for EZ is higher than ABC, for the reason that(很好的引入原因的方法，正宗北美范文上的） 1)EZ collects trash more frequent than ABC; 2)EZ has ordered additional trucks; 3) a survey shows that people were satisfied with EZ’s performance. However, these evidences are too insufficient to support the recommendation.

First of all，the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that WG is much better than ABC（这里有问题，你是不是想表达WG用更适合用EZ啊？那前面要有限定成分，比如说：the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the optimal choice for WG no doubt is EZ）, for the reason that EZ collects trash twice a week, while(whereas 都可以提供一个同义替换，呵呵 就北美范文上来看 whereas 出现的频率远远高于while 我只是说ARGUMENT部分，ISSUE没统计过) ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Nevertheless, the assumption is incredible, for the arguer does not consider the town’s requirement for collecting rubbish. If Walnut Grove(WG)（（WG应该在第一段里头提出来） is a small town, it is entirely likely that once a week is enough for them, whereas twice is redundant and lavish（这里用的好，这个词伙我也要收录到我的总结中）. Or if WG is born(inborn 用这个词比born更orthodox 我怎么感觉这么说很 Chingish啊？ 还是考虑用originally吧) a clean town and residents there prefer recycle the trash rather than throwing away, the need for trash collecting would be little. Similarly, the additional trucks of EZ would contribute（to) nothing on trash collecting, for a fleet of 20 trucks might be enough for the whole town.   Because the arguer does not provide status about local trash amount, it is hard to conclude that collecting twice a week better than once, let requirement for more trucks alone. （本段中使用for 引导的原因状语从句太多了，是不是考虑换一换风格？）

Thirdly, a survey that 80 percent of respondents last year satisfied with EZ’s performance can support nothing about the argument, for its validity is doubtful. Lacking information about the number and communities of residents surveyed, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 100 denizens from the same community where EZ’s services happened to be high of quality were surveyed, the conclusion would be highly suspect. In addition, no evidence indicates that local denizens are not satisfied with ABC’s performance. Without ruling out these possibilities, the results of the survey are inadequate to hold the conclusion.  

Finally, even if the town indeed needs services like what EZ can provide, whether the town could finance the services is unknown. It is possible that WG’s town council advocated switch from EZ to ABC whose fee is lower partly due to its finance ability. If the town finance can not afford the raised fee of EZ, it is understandable for the town council to make the choice. Or even if they can afford it, they prefer invest limited finance expense on other more important aspects like education and medical care, rather than expend too much in trash collecting.（这句话举例说明的好） In these cases, the arguer’s suggestion would not stand at all.

To sum up, the arguer’s evidence lends little credible support to the claim. To persuade me that the town should choose EZ rather than ABC, the arguer would need to provide more clear evidence that EZ is more suitable for the town. To better evaluate the arguer’s claim, we should need more sufficient information comparing the performance and fee of the two trash collecting companies. We also need specified status about the town including finance and rubbish situation to help make decision more benefit for local residents.

文章整体写的真的不错，但是细节还需要注意。我感觉词汇变化上确实很灵巧，都尽可能地避免了重复。句式方面也不错 每一段为一个单位，每段的句子风格都不一样。不过我还是觉得不要以段落为单位去展现句子的多样化，还是每个具体到每个句子吧。 像第一段使用for引导的原因状语从句就太多了。 说明情况可以用其他的结构嘛。 不过我那篇文章使用比较结构也特别多，这点也我也得改善。    呵呵   下次限时看看吧。