ARGUMENT17[为我所用第三次作业]

flair1031UID: 2314987

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: 429          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-3-20 4:00:33

The argument draws the conclusion that the town council should continue using EZ Disposal, which had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for past ten years rather than switch to ABC Waste. Considering the 500 dollars increase of fee, the arguer consist his recommendation with his reason that EZ collects trash one more time than ABC. The author also analyzes the fact that EZ ordered additional trucks, although it owns as many trucks as ABC now. At last, the author refers a survey in which 80% responders express satisfactory with EZ's performance. As it stands, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC collects only once cannot support the assumption that the service of EZ is worthwhile to be paid more 500. We need more information concerning the habit of the resident. When they pour the garbage? Does the second time collection make sense to the environmental in Walnut Grove town? Do mostly citizens need this extra or it just satisfies a few mount of population? Lacking the details and information about these fields, we have enough reason to suspect the conclusion.

In addition, the basis for the conclusion of the argument is the expectation that additional truck will enhance the service of EZ. However, the arguer does not supply persuasive reasons to convince us. What if the trucks is purposed to be used in other ways rather than collect trash? What if 20 trucks are able to satisfy the work load in this region while more trucks are useless? The author also does not mention the date of the delivery. It will undermine additional trucks' significance if they are brought in to play too late.

A third problem with the argument is that the statistical evidence of survey upon which the conclusion relies is too vague to be informative. How many are participants? What’s the proportion of the respondents? According to which standards are the participants chosen? if the subjects for the survey were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross-section of the population of residents, the results will be reliable regardless of the number of participants. Unfortunately, the author lists nothing effectively supporting.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this recommendation is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that one more time of collection is rewarding. Moreover, i would suspend my judgment about the credibility of recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence showing that the representation of the survey.

bitdxcUID: 2465290

The argument draws the conclusion that the town council should continue using EZ Disposal, which had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for past ten years rather than switch to ABC Waste. Considering the 500 dollars increase of fee, the arguer consist his recommendation with his reason that EZ collects trash one more time than ABC. The author also analyzes the fact that EZ ordered additional trucks, although it owns as many trucks as ABC now. At last, the author refers a survey in which 80% responders express satisfactory with EZ's performance. As it stands, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC collects only once cannot support the assumption that the service of EZ is worthwhile to be paid more 500. We need more information concerning the habit of the resident. When they pour the garbage? Does the second time collection make sense to the environmental in Walnut Grove town? Do mostly citizens need this extra or it just satisfies a few mount of population? Lacking the details and information about these fields(换个词吧如aspects), we have enough reason to suspect the conclusion.

In addition, the basis for the conclusion of the argument is the expectation that additional truck will enhance the service of EZ. However, the arguer does not supply persuasive reasons to convince us. What if the trucks is purposed to be used in other ways rather than collect trash? What if 20 trucks are able to satisfy the work load in this region while more trucks are useless? The author also does not mention the date of the delivery. It will undermine additional trucks' significance if they are brought in to play(playing) too late.

A third problem with the argument is that the statistical evidence of survey upon which the conclusion relies is too vague to be informative. How many are participants? What’s the proportion of the respondents? According to which standards are the participants chosen? if the subjects for the survey were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross-section of the population of residents, the results will be reliable regardless of the number of participants. Unfortunately, the author lists nothing effectively supporting.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this recommendation is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that one more time of collection is rewarding. Moreover, i(I) would suspend my judgment about the credibility of recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence showing that the representation of the survey.

评价：
优点就不提了
对每个逻辑错误的分析和驳斥，用了太多的疑问句，这种模式较为单调，可以用一些without句等丰富一下反驳模式。