argument17 [Jet小组]第二次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

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: 499         TIME: 上午 15:00:00          DATE: 2008-2-1

In this letter, the writer assumed that Walnut Grove’s town authority should continue to contract with EZ but ABC Waste, because EZ provided more frequent service than ABC Waste and would own more trucks, which would benefit the town a lot. The writer also cited a result from a survey which showed 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance. However, the statement is based on partial reasoning and assertions, which cannot convince me.

First of all, the author overlooked the fact that EZ raised its monthly fee, which led Walnut Grove town to an increase cost. It played an important role in affecting the town authority’s decision. There is no doubt that it would be a heavier pressure to the town if the bill is added to $2500 a month. Meanwhile, the increased price might indicate that EZ has dropped into a disadvantageous status in the competition with ABC Waste. Choosing EZ might be an inadvisable decision.

Secondly, the author claimed that they should use EZ because it offered a more frequent service than ABC. Apparently, the author misunderstood the fact that the reason why we need a trash collection services is to purge our town effectively but frequently. Whether collecting trash twice a week by EZ is more effective than collecting trash once a week by ABC is suspicious. It is reasonable to believe they might play a similar role in trash collecting, or even ABC is better, since the author has not provided any evidence to convince me that EZ performed more greatly by working twice a week. It is absurd to persuade the town authority to contract with EZ just because of a frequent cleaning.

The author also argued that EZ had ordered additional trucks which would be larger in quantity than ABC. It has to admit that the writer intertwined the relationship between the quantities of instruments and the quality of service. It is absolutely possible that ABC, which owns fewer trucks, would complete jobs more effectively. If the author doesn’t prove that EZ will serve the town in a better way, I cannot be convinced that choosing EZ is an advisable selection.

What’s more, it is cited by the author that a last year’s town survey has showed that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance to prove that they should continue to contract with EZ. However, it did not indicate that ABC would not be welcome. Since ABC might provide a better performance than EZ, it cannot be denied the fact that people may also appreciate ABC; or even more individuals would support it.

In sum, the author drew conclusion upon reasoning with many flaws which I wrote above. The argument would be more believable if the author can provide evidences that more frequent service and large amount of instruments bring better achievement, which means the increment cost would be worthy. The argument would be more persuasive if the author show ABC would be less supported by the public.

leftkissUID: 2347956

:)
argument17 [Jet小组]第二次作业


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: 499         TIME: 上午 15:00:00          DATE: 2008-2-1

In this letter, the writer assumed that Walnut Grove’s town authority should continue to contract with EZ but ABC Waste, because EZ provided more frequent service than ABC Waste and would own more trucks, which would benefit the town a lot—我觉得现在是在重复argument的内容吧,文里没有这个，是不是不要加～一会挑错时可以作为hidden conclusion来批？. The writer also cited a result from a survey which showed 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance. However, the statement is based on partial reasoning and assertions, which cannot convince me.（people更加大众？）

First of all, the author overlooked（改为belittled the influence轻视怎么样？） the fact that EZ raised its monthly fee, which led Walnut Grove town to an increase cost. It played an important role in affecting the town authority’s decision. There is no doubt that it would be a heavier pressure to the town if the bill is added to $2500 a month. Meanwhile, the increased price might indicate that EZ has dropped into a disadvantageous status in the competition with ABC Waste. Choosing EZ might be an inadvisable decision.
感觉the arguer没有overlook这一点，arguer认为即使加价，但是考虑到：
1多收一次垃圾；2多了tracks；3有80 percents满意
基于以上所以arguer认为还应该用EZ；所以我觉得应该就这几点批――俺滴思路你参考一哈子吧～～

Secondly, the author claimed that they should use EZ because it offered a more frequent service than ABC. Apparently, the author misunderstood the fact that the reason why we need a trash collection services is to purge our town effectively but frequently.（好！！！） Whether collecting trash twice a week by EZ is more effective than collecting trash once a week by ABC is suspicious. It is reasonable to believe they might play a similar role in trash collecting, or even ABC is better, since the author has not provided any evidence to convince me that EZ performed more greatly by working twice a week. It is absurd to persuade the town authority to contract with EZ just because of a frequent cleaning.

The author also argued that EZ had ordered additional trucks which would be larger in quantity than ABC. It has to admit that the writer intertwined the relationship between the quantities of instruments and the quality of service. It is absolutely possible that ABC, which owns fewer trucks, would complete jobs more effectively. If the author doesn’t prove that EZ will serve the town in a better way, I cannot be convinced that choosing EZ is an advisable selection. 再多说点：比如additional tracks 是为了开展其他地方的业务呢？而非服务本地区

What’s more, it is cited by the author that a last year’s town survey has showed that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance to prove that they should continue to contract with EZ. However, it did not indicate that ABC would not be welcome. Since ABC might provide a better performance than EZ, it cannot be denied the fact that people may also appreciate ABC; or even more individuals would support it. 导致survey结果的原因呢：比如大家不熟悉ABC，因为过去十年都是和EZ合作……再详细说说，而这段开头对survey描述可以简介些^^

In sum, the author drew conclusion upon reasoning with many flaws which I wrote above. The argument would be more believable if the author can provide evidences that more frequent service and large amount of instruments bring better achievement, which means the increment cost would be worthy. Furthermore, the argument would be more persuasive if the author show ABC would be less supported by the public.---结尾好！！！

小结：
错误找的挺全的，就是再安排一下逻辑关系就好了～语言有好多值得学习的地方！！
嘛限时完成，已经很好了，我还没有限时完成过捏～皑皑～我要加油了～互勉哈^^