argument17据说是高频，有砖必回

nikeboy1999UID: 159930

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 argument, the author claims that the proposal made by the town council about which company to choose for trash collection service is false. Given several seemingly sound reasons to support this, the author contends that the town council should pick EZ rather than ABC for EZ is better than ABC. However, in my analysis, the evidence cited are far too vague to support the final conclusion.

First of all, two facts are pointed out, that is, EZ collects trash more frequent than ABC and EZ's working fleet will twice as many as ABC's. Based on these factors, the author considers that EZ is obviously superior. But this is dubious and might not be the case. It is entirely possible that the trash in the town needs only once job a week, and twice is waste to some extant. Likewise, there might be no need to put double trucks into this work, thus the orderation of new fleet of EZ might be a waste too. Moreover, even if it is necessary to collect trash twice a week and the addition of more trucks is desirable, without the comparison of efficiency of the two, we can not draw directly from this that EZ will do better job than ABC.

Secondly, the author cited a result of a survey a year before to bolster the argument. However, the credibility of this survey should be weighted. On the one hand, we are not informed how many people took part in this survey and how many respondents were received. If only a small fraction of residents were surveyed and only a few people gave their feedback, it is not hard to say that the survey is not convincing. On the other hand, even the result of this survey is credible, this is an one-side comparison. There is no information presented about the attitude of people to ABC, thus we can not be so sure whether residents who satisfied with EZ are content with ABC or even prefer ABC. Hence, without ruling out these scenarios, we can not believe that EZ is really popular than ABC.

Thirdly, as what the author mentioned in the beginning of this letter, EZ cost $500 more a month than ABC. Besides, we do not know about the true efficiency and quality of these two companies. Thus, we could have strong reason to decide that ABC ought to be chosen in order to save money for the town. Likely, the town council might face financial problems or other projects need more financial help that some budget should sacrifice to make sure more urgent ones going normal and well. Taking these possibilities into account, the cheaper one might be a better choice.

In sum, this a weak argument and thus not convincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must weight the whole development of the town and offer more information and strong evidence to support the final judgment.

490words

烂作一篇，没限时，大概40分钟左右，走过的路过的丢块砖啊！谢谢了！！！

GladysryUID: 198609

In this argument, the author claims that the proposal made by the town council about which company to choose for trash collection service is false. Given several seemingly sound reasons to support this, the author contends that the town council should pick EZ rather than ABC for EZ is better than ABC. However, in my analysis, the evidence cited are far too vague to support the final conclusion.恩，我现在对imong的那个经典之作还没吃透，也不了解开头到底该怎样，但是我个人意见是还可以，但是可以把你的analysis的精要提一下，以作thesis之用。

First of all, two facts are pointed out, that is, EZ collects trash more frequent than ABC and EZ's working fleet will twice as many as ABC's. Based on these factors, the author considers that EZ is obviously superior. But this is dubious and might not be the case. It is entirely possible that the trash in the town needs only once job a week, and twice is waste to some extant. Likewise, there might be no need to put double trucks into this work, thus the orderation of new fleet of EZ might be a waste too. Moreover, even if it is necessary to collect trash twice a week and the addition of more trucks is desirable, without the comparison of efficiency of the two, we can not draw directly from this that EZ will do better job than ABC.这一段里有一些语法错误，还有拼写错误，希望你自己能看出来。逻辑很清晰。

Secondly, the author cited a result of a survey a year before to bolster the argument. However, the credibility of this survey should be weighted. On the one hand, we are not informed how many people took part in this survey and how many respondents were received. If only a small fraction of residents were surveyed and only a few people gave their feedback, it is not hard to say that the survey is not convincing. On the other hand, even the result of this survey is credible, this is an one-side comparison. There is no information presented about the attitude of people to ABC, thus we can not be so sure whether residents who satisfied with EZ are content with ABC or even prefer ABC. Hence, without ruling out these scenarios, we can not believe that EZ is really popular than ABC.赫赫，偶觉得这一段不错

Thirdly, as what the author mentioned in the beginning of this letter, EZ cost $500 more a month than ABC. Besides, we do not know about the true efficiency and quality of these two companies. Thus, we could have strong reason to decide that ABC ought to be chosen in order to save money for the town. Likely, the town council might face financial problems or other projects need more financial help that some budget should sacrifice to make sure more urgent ones going normal and well. Taking these possibilities into account, the cheaper one might be a better choice.
开头应该是at the beginning of 吧？what可以省掉吧？你很喜欢用连接词，而且都是单个儿列出，但是我认为用得太多反而让我读起来很别扭。个人意见赫赫。

In sum, this is a weak argument and thus not convincing as it stands. 你不觉得少谓语么？and 跟thus可以在一起么？这是两个连词吧？To strengthen it, the author must weight the whole development of the town and offer more information and strong evidence to support the final judgment.


40分钟，写得这么多，很不错啊。而且逻辑上很清晰，只是出一些小毛病，可能是你再发之前没有自己改过，下次再发给一个自己改过的上来，这样才能让战友们帮你拣出自己注意不到的错误。

互改，共勉！:)

nikeboy1999UID: 159930

多谢Gladysry

偶的确没改就发上来了，以后一定注意。

这是第二篇argu，很多地方还很欠缺，大家共同进步吧