Argument17[Jet]小组第二次作业

O--honeyUID: 2452493

字数：456  时间：08.2.1
In this argument, the arguer feel like to defend against the decision Walnut Grove’s town council has made that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste while the later one reasons for EZ’s recently raising monthly fee issues, the arguer list several reasons：first, EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC once. Second, EZ not only have the same numbers of trucks as ABC but also having ordered additional trucks. Third, EZ provides exceptional service and 80 percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ’s performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the judgment is.

  
First, I want to point out that the arguer fails to provide necessary evidence about whether residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Maybe the frequency delight the residents but the amount of money would really annoy them, so maybe after serious consideration, they decide to abandon the EZ just because of the more money part they have to pay, while I do not deny that the residents may not care about the more money, but the argue fail to give evident evidence!

Second, the argue only talk about EZ will provide more trucks than ABC, but he still left one possibility, that is what if the residents don’t care about the amount of trucks but the quality of service, in this case, even EZ can provide 200 more trucks, if the quality of service is bad, I am afraid the residents will choose the ABC without any consideration. There can be other possibilities, one of them is what if the residents also have fondness towards ABC as same as EZ in which the number of trucks they provide will account nothing! And the arguer still miss to provide some details to support his assessment

Third, the arguer only provide the percentage of people who join the survey that also are satisfied with EZ’s performance, he still fails to point out the percentage of people join survey throughout the survey area, so he can’t eliminate the possibility that only a small amount of people take part in this action that can not totally reflect the opinions of all residents, therefore, it is too hazy to make this decision based on some uncertain reason. What’s more, he can’t also back against the possibility that those who show satisfying attitude towards EZ also are toward ABC!

In sum, the conclusions lack serious evidence to support, in order to make the argument more persuasive, the arguer must put some evidences to rule out those possibilities and at the same time, give more feasible examples to support its own argument.

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

In this argument, the arguer feel(feels） like to defend against the decision Walnut Grove’s town council has made that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste while the later one reasons for EZ’s recently raising（rising) monthly fee issues, the arguer list(lists) several reasons：first, EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC (does)once. Second, EZ not only have the same numbers of trucks as ABC but also having ordered additional trucks. Third, EZ provides exceptional service and 80 percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ’s performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the judgment is.

  
First, I want to point out that the arguer fails to provide necessary evidence about whether residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Maybe the frequency delight the residents but the amount of money would really annoy them, so maybe after serious consideration, they decide to abandon the EZ just because of the more money part they have to pay, while I do not deny that the residents may not care about the more money, but the argue fail to give evident evidence!(观点很不错， 颇受启发！）

Second, the argue only talk about EZ will provide more trucks than ABC, but he still left one possibility, that is what if the residents don’t care about the amount of trucks but the quality of service, in this case, even EZ can provide 200 more trucks, if the quality of service is bad, I am afraid the residents will choose the ABC without any consideration. There can be other possibilities, one of them is what if the residents also have fondness towards ABC as same as EZ in which the number of trucks they provide will account nothing! And the arguer still miss to provide some details to support his assessment(前文说了少考虑了一种可能，后面又说还有其他可能，矛盾了）

Third, the arguer only provide the percentage of people who join the survey that also are satisfied with EZ’s performance, he still fails to point out the percentage of people join survey throughout the survey area, so he can’t eliminate the possibility that only a small amount of people take part in this action that can not totally reflect the opinions of all residents, therefore, it is too hazy to make this decision based on some uncertain reason. What’s more, he can’t also back against the possibility that those who show satisfying attitude towards EZ also are toward ABC!

In sum, the conclusions lack serious evidence to support, in order to make the argument more persuasive, the arguer must put some evidences to rule out those possibilities and at the same time, give more feasible examples to support its own argument.（最后的建议会不会太概括了点？）

1.发现你的思路真的挺不错的，不像其他写的思维僵化
2.找得理由也很Persuasive
3.有些语法，表达上的小问题，多注意下加上你的思维 就很好啦