Argument17[Jet]小组第二次作业 互拍 ALL WELCOME

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

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."
                                       WORD:503                                                                TIME:2008.2.1                                              :loveliness:
In the letter, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue the contract with EZ, rather than shifting from EZ to ABC. To support the recommendation the arguer cites the follow facts about EZ:(1) EZ collects trash twice the frequency that ABC does, while charge only a quarter more;(2) EZ orders additional twenty trucks recently; and (3) according to a survey conducted by EZ, the customers give a good praise to EZ's performance. Closely scrutiny these facts, however, reveal that it is not as tenable as it stands.

In the first place, the recommendation relies on an implicit assumption that the extra $500 charged by EZ is reasonable. If the higher charge is not due to the rising expense to offer more trash collecting service, but to expand the market, for example, hire an advertisement company for promoting; or if the raised monthly fee is aimed at earning excessive revenue such as bring more bonuses to the executives. If either scenario is the case, the recommendation that Walnut Grove's town council should advocate EZ is unconvincing.

Even if the extra fee charged by EZ has been proved to be the result of providing better service to the customers, which is, of course, an unwarranted recommendation, it does not followed that EZ would be superior to ABC. Knowing that EZ collects twice a week while ABC collects once every week, and only charges a quarter more than ABC does, it would likely to conclude EZ is more cost effective than ABC. However, possibly collect trash once a week is already sufficient for Walnut Grove's town, for we are not informed the population, the scale of the town, the economic situation, the industrial developing level, and so forth.

Thirdly, the arguer provided incomplete information in the comparison between EZ and ABC. Although EZ has a fleet of 20 trucks order, it is entirely possible ABC has also a similar, or even larger, order of trucks. Moreover, without more accurate information, we may suspect the usage of these additional trucks. There is a good chance that the trucks are used to provide service to the nearby town, not Walnut Grove's town.

Finally, the survey is further weakened by the doubtful reliability and representative of the survey. Lacking evidence on who conducted the survey, the statistics that 80 percentage of the respondents was satisfied with the performance would be unjustified. What is more, consider the customers who are inclined to EZ would be more likely to respond to the survey, the survey may not reflect the actually inclination of the overall residents.

In sum, the arguer's recommendation that Walnut Grove’s community should keep the contract with EZ would be gratuitous to some extent. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer ought to prove collecting trash once a week can not satisfy the need of the residents. To better evaluate the recommendation, we also need to know the actual cause of the rising fee of EZ, and complete information when compare the predominance of EZ and ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 xiahsoul 于 2008-2-2 02:42 编辑 ]

O--honeyUID: 2452493

In the letter, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue the contract with EZ, rather than shifting from EZ to ABC. To support the recommendation the arguer cites the follow facts about EZ:(1) EZ collects trash twice the frequency that ABC does, while charge only a quarter more;(2) EZ orders additional twenty trucks recently; and (3) according to a survey conducted by EZ, the customers give a good praise to EZ's performance. Closely scrutiny these facts, however, reveal that it is not as tenable as it stands.

In the first place, the recommendation relies on an implicit assumption that the extra $500 charged by EZ is reasonable. If the higher charge is not due to the rising expense to offer more trash collecting service, but to expand the market, for example, hire an advertisement company for promoting; or if the raised monthly fee is aimed at earning excessive revenue such as bring more bonuses to the executives. If either scenario is the case, the recommendation that Walnut Grove's town council should advocate EZ is unconvincing.(我觉得这一段的思路有问题，我们提出的反驳观点是对于arguer的观点而言的，而你提出质疑的对象是walnut grove's town council）

Even if the extra fee charged by EZ has been proved to be the result of providing better service to the customers, which is, of course, an unwarranted recommendation, it does not followed that EZ would be superior to ABC. Knowing that EZ collects twice a week while ABC collects once every week, and only charges a quarter more than ABC does, it would likely to conclude EZ is more cost effective than ABC. However, possibly collect trash once a week is already sufficient for Walnut Grove's town, for we are not informed the population, the scale of the town, the economic situation, the industrial developing level, and so forth.（这一段显然也是对council的观点提出的质疑）

Thirdly, the arguer provided incomplete information in the comparison between EZ and ABC. Although EZ has a fleet of 20 trucks order, it is entirely possible ABC has also a similar, or even larger, order of trucks. Moreover, without more accurate information, we may suspect the usage of these additional trucks. There is a good chance that the trucks are used to provide service to the nearby town, not Walnut Grove's town.（这一段反而又对arguer的观点提出质疑）

Finally, the survey is further weakened by the doubtful reliability and representative of the survey. Lacking evidence on who conducted the survey, the statistics that 80 percentage of the respondents was satisfied with the performance would be unjustified. What is more, consider the customers who are inclined to EZ would be more likely to respond to the survey, the survey may not reflect the actually inclination of the overall residents.（这段和上段一样对arguer的观点提出质疑）

In sum, the arguer's recommendation that Walnut Grove’s community should keep the contract with EZ would be gratuitous to some extent. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer ought to prove collecting trash once a week can not satisfy the need of the residents. To better evaluate the recommendation, we also need to know the actual cause of the rising fee of EZ, and complete information when compare the predominance of EZ and ABC.


1.这个argue中同时对council和arguer的观点提出质疑，我觉得这样做是不妥的，会导致自己的观点自相矛盾，不知道你到底是说谁对还是谁错
2.最好还是假设一方是合理的，提出另一方不合理的原因或是可能性。
3.还是老样子，文采很棒