argument17 51互助组第4次作业 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

题目：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."


In this argument, the author, based on a series of evidences that the comparison of frequency of waste collecting, newly ordered trucks of EZ Disposal, and the so-called higher percentage of satisfaction from the public, suggests that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ's services. All evidences look reasonable, however, they can not bear in-depth scrutinizes. And as far as I am concerned, the logic of the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies.

First and foremost, the ostensive high satisfaction reflected from the town survey is too futile to substantiate the better services of EZ Disposal. As the author mentions nothing about the authenticity and reliability of the survey, I can freely argue that such survey might be conducted deliberately by EZ Disposal to convince the council to go on with their cooperation. The respondents or the individuals who received the survey were artificially selected to offer eulogies, and only such individuals received satisfying services.  While, in fact, these people might only make up of a small proportion of the whole town. And the overall services quality of EZ might not be so convincing as that in the survey. According to analysis above, the result of the survey has much suspicions so that it is too weak to support the author's conclusion .

Even grant EZ's formal convincing performance, already existing evidence also can not lend enough credence to the argument . In the first place, by stating  that EZ collects trash twice a week in contrast to ABC only once, the author tends to make it acceptable that EZ always provides better service than ABC from the frequency of collecting trash. However, the author unfairly neglects the points that the entirely quantity of trash collection does not only include frequency. Thus, I have enough sound reasons to doubt that though EZ collects more frequently, however because of small capacity of their trucks, the whole quantity of their twice collections may not catch up with ABC's once.  Another obvious suspicion upon this point involves in that Walnut Grove might not need a second time of collection for a small population and little waste that they produce, even grant the capacity of one collection of the two companies are comparable. Under this circumstance, the second collection of trash of EZ might be nothing but a waste, and bring no benefit to the residents in Walnut Grove.  Based on the comments above, the evidence-higher frequency of EZ's collection is still unsubstantial to have his argument convinced.

In the second place, the final evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks will bring overwhelming services over ABC is still open to doubt. The author deliberately includes the number of trucks that EZ has currently bought for tending to show that the additional quantity of trash collection of EZ and subliminally assumes that ABC orders none, however, that might not be the case.  Perhaps, ABC orders extra trucks ,if not more than, as many as those EZ orders, for the economical prosperity and the need of expanding business.  Concedingly speaking again, even the author offers extra statistic of the number of trucks that ABC orders, this evidence can not serve as support to make the argument logically reasonable. Similarly to the passages above, the author confronts two questions: the first one lies in that does EZ really need extra trucks to go on with their business? and the second  is that even the qualities  of trucks are comparable between the two companies, without precise comparison of the capacity of each truck, there is nothing to show that EZ has currently enlarge the ability to deal with their business. And the author either do not extinguish the adverse possibility of the two questions.

In brief, the author tends to provide evidences to question the business ability of ABC and further persuade the community to continue using EZ's services, however he is unable to have all evidence substantiated. Thus, I would claim that the choice of the community is correct for saving expenditure of trash collection on the basis of not degrading the quality of services.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-11 00:02 编辑 ]

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

自己修改了一遍

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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."


In this argument, the author, based on a series of evidences that the comparison of frequency (the two companies' frequencies) of waste collecting, newly ordered trucks of EZ Disposal (compared with whom?), and the so-called higher percentage of satisfaction  (whose satisfaction?)from the public,(这一段的重复很沉冗, 一是过多的插入成分让句子不连贯--你又不是在出GRE阅读--, 二是对于论据的概括也不精确, 这种时候省略些比较好, 三是没又点明作者的目的, 做这个comparison要干嘛? 对, 要COUNCIL继续用EZ, 但怎么建议? 当然是证明EZ的优点, COMPARISON到建议之间有一个逻辑连接, 把这个说明白比单纯地重复题目内容更重要) suggests that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ's services. All evidences look reasonable, however, they can not bear in-depth scrutinizes. And as far as I am concerned, the logic of the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies.

First and foremost, the ostensive high satisfaction reflected from the town survey is too futile to substantiate the better services of EZ Disposal. As the author mentions nothing about the authenticity and reliability of the survey, I can freely argue that such survey might be conducted deliberately by EZ Disposal to convince the council to go on with their cooperation. The respondents or the individuals who received the survey were artificially selected to offer eulogies, and only such individuals received satisfying services.  (这一段的论述显得没有立场没有依据, 因为作者没有提供SURVEY的任何背景, 有关这个问题可以看下我以前的帖子 有关ARGUMENT中的无背景SURVEY要不要批 ) While, in fact, these people might only make up of a small proportion of the whole town. And the overall services quality of EZ might not be so convincing as that in the survey. According to analysis above, the result of the survey has much suspicions so that it is too weak to support the author's conclusion .(这篇ARGUMENT我看过无数次, 自己也写过两次, 认为这个SURVEY显然是有问题, 也很必要批, 但是是不是要象范文里那样没有根据批调查人和样本代表性呢? 未必. 首先, 80%是不是一个很高的比值我们不知道, 试想下我们生活中谁会对垃圾收集服务这么敏感? 如果不出什么大的漏子, 相信没人会没事抱怨垃圾处理公司吧, 所以, 80%非但不是一个很有效的数字, 相反, 剩下那20%还足以证明EZ的服务还有很多不足. 第二, ABC的服务质量我们压根不知道, 所以这个SURVEY没的比, 在一个二选一的论证中, 比较才是唯一有说服力的东西, 因此我们完全可以怀疑ABC能获得更高的民意支持)

Even grant EZ's formal convincing performance, already existing evidence also can not lend enough credence to the argument . In the first place,(你前面有First and foremost这又来个first place, 让人不能知道那个second place是对着谁说的, 这种时候只有两个分论点不适宜用这个, 用one...the other这种会更好。另外作者是把三条论据并列提出的, 没有说这两条要共同论证个什么东西, 所以把它们强行归到一起跟第一个放到不同的逻辑层次上也是不合适的) by stating  that EZ collects trash twice a week in contrast to ABC only once, the author tends to make it acceptable that EZ always provides better service than ABC from the frequency of collecting trash (如果单纯说frequency的话, 确实越多越好, 这个限定没必要). However, the author unfairly neglects the points that the entirely quantity of trash collection does not only include frequency. Thus, I have enough sound reasons to doubt that though EZ collects more frequently, however because of small capacity of their trucks, the whole quantity of their twice collections may not catch up with ABC's once.(So? is the quantity the only standard to evaluate their service? 说明这样EZ会造成垃圾的堆积, 环境恶化, 甚至由于搬运次数多带来的噪音污染等等, 把你的论点直接联系到两个公司的根本冲突点上)  Another obvious suspicion upon this point involves in that Walnut Grove might not need a second time of collection for a small population and little waste that they produce, even grant the capacity of one collection of the two companies are comparable. Under this circumstance, the second collection of trash of EZ might be nothing but a waste, and bring no benefit to the residents in Walnut Grove.  Based on the comments above, the evidence-higher frequency of EZ's collection is still unsubstantial to have his argument convinced.(这种结论很笼统, 最好具体到作者的论证目的, 比如EZ服务好, ABC服务不好什么的)

In the second place, the final evidence (作者用的final evidence是那个survey吧, 乱改题目顺序可不太好) that EZ has ordered additional trucks will bring overwhelming services over ABC (作者没有直接这么说, 也没说overwhelming, 转述意思的时候需要谨慎些, 尽量少用绝对字眼) is still open to doubt. The author deliberately includes the number of trucks that EZ has currently bought for tending to show that the additional quantity of trash collection of EZ and subliminally assumes that ABC orders none, however, that might not be the case.  (这句把第一句的内容又说了一遍, 内容没什么东西, 可以去掉) Perhaps,(在主题句后需要做说明, 不宜直接举例, 这样你的推断就显得没有根据了, 说说作者的错误, 没提到ABC, 然后再提出可能, 过度就会自然些) ABC orders extra trucks ,if not more than, as many as those EZ orders, for the economical prosperity and the need of expanding business.(即使为了economical prosperity, 这么做还是会降低服务质量, 不能推翻作者的论证)  Concedingly speaking again, even the author offers extra statistic of the number of trucks that ABC orders, this evidence can not serve as support to make the argument logically reasonable. Similarly to the passages above, the author confronts two questions: the first one lies in that does EZ really need extra trucks to go on with their business? and the second  is that even the qualities  of trucks are comparable between the two companies, without precise comparison of the capacity of each truck, there is nothing to show that EZ has currently enlarge the ability to deal with their business.(这里没必要把重复出现的观点再说这么多, 一句话概括过去就行了, 还可以提出新的论点, 比如EZ买的卡车是不是要给WG用的, 卡车多工作是不是就能有效率, 搞不好车一多司机不够找好多新手, 办事效率反而降低了) And the author either do not extinguish the adverse possibility of the two questions.

In brief, the author tends to provide evidences to question the business ability of ABC and further persuade the community to continue using EZ's services, however he is unable to have all evidence substantiated. Thus, I would claim that the choice of the community is correct for saving expenditure of trash collection on the basis of not degrading the quality of services.

总评:
破题上: LZ最严重的问题是忽视了题目中给出的"because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000", 想想作者要论证的到底是什么? EZ比ABC强么? 打个比方, 包子没肯德基好吃, 但吃的时候我们是会根据自己的财力来选择吧. 所以这道题作者的目的是想证明EZ比ABC多出的那500美圆很合算, 但第一他论据不足第二他也没有说明EZ这些优点就值500美圆, 所以这个原因在论述中一定要被提及, 即使EZ的服务值那500美圆, 很可能WG的预算就给了2000刀一个月, 所以多一分它们都不能承受, 甚至可能因为EZ之前和WG有协议现在私自涨价引起WG的不满于是被炒了, 总之在整个三个并列论据之外题目的漏洞还是很大的, 建议LZ多多揣测下.

结构上: 一般外国人比较习惯一点对一点按顺序来, LZ重新整理了题目论据的顺序但显得依据不足, 感觉没多大必要, 如果那个SURVEY真那么重要, 应该上来就说清楚--从题目的叙述来看这条论据地位并没有比另两条高.

论证上: 它因给的很充分, 这点很好, 但要注意"包装"自己的它因, 怎么让它们出现得更自然更合理是强化论证很重要的一步, 具体的在文章中说过了就不多累述了.

语言上: 感觉废话有点多, 经常用两句话重复同样的意思, 可以再推敲下, 有些表达也可以精简些.

总体而言是篇不错的ARGUMENT了, 应该争取更高的目标, 加油~

为了忘记UID: 2317994

In this argument, the author, based on a series of evidences that the comparison of frequency of waste collecting, newly ordered trucks of EZ Disposal, and the so-called higher percentage of satisfaction from the public, suggests that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ's services. All evidences look reasonable, however, they can not bear in-depth scrutinizes. And as far as I am concerned, the logic of the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies.

First and foremost, the ostensive high satisfaction reflected from the town survey is too futile to substantiate the better services of EZ Disposal. As the author mentions nothing about the authenticity and reliability of the survey, I can freely argue that such survey might be conducted deliberately by EZ Disposal to convince the council to go on with their cooperation. The respondents or the individuals who received the survey were artificially selected to offer eulogies, and only such individuals received satisfying services.  While, in fact, these people might only make up of a small proportion of the whole town. And the overall services quality of EZ might not be so convincing as that in the survey. According to analysis above, the result of the survey has much suspicions so that it is too weak to support the author's conclusion .[感觉这种单纯的攻击调查的真实性和准确性意义不大。如果非要在这方面较真，那每个调查都可以是攻击对象了。当然不是说不能攻击SURVEY，这篇文章如果从“调查是在一年之前做的，也就是在EZ涨价之前，不代表EZ涨价之后人们仍然会选择它”这个方面来写，或者是“因为EZ已经服务了10年，所以大家对ABC的情况了解不足，也许ABC会更好，调查缺少比较性，不能说明EZ比ABC好”]

Even grant EZ's formal convincing performance, already existing evidence also can not lend enough credence to the argument . In the first place, by stating  that EZ collects trash twice a week in contrast to ABC only once, the author tends to make it acceptable that EZ always provides better service than ABC from the frequency of collecting trash. However, the author unfairly neglects the points that the entirely quantity of trash collection does not only include frequency. Thus, I have enough sound reasons to doubt that though EZ collects more frequently, however because of small capacity of their trucks, the whole quantity of their twice collections may not catch up with ABC's once.  Another obvious suspicion upon this point involves in that Walnut Grove might not need a second time of collection for a small population and little waste that they produce, even grant the capacity of one collection of the two companies are comparable. Under this circumstance, the second collection of trash of EZ might be nothing but a waste, and bring no benefit to the residents in Walnut Grove.  Based on the comments above, the evidence-higher frequency of EZ's collection is still unsubstantial to have his argument convinced.

In the second place, the final evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks will bring overwhelming services over ABC is still open to doubt. The author deliberately includes the number of trucks that EZ has currently bought for tending to show that the additional quantity of trash collection of EZ and subliminally assumes that ABC orders none, however, that might not be the case.  Perhaps, ABC orders extra trucks ,if not more than, as many as those EZ orders, for the economical prosperity and the need of expanding business.  Concedingly speaking again, even the author offers extra statistic of the number of trucks that ABC orders, this evidence can not serve as support to make the argument logically reasonable. Similarly to the passages above, the author confronts two questions: the first one lies in that does EZ really need extra trucks to go on with their business? and the second  is that even the qualities  of trucks are comparable between the two companies, without precise comparison of the capacity of each truck, there is nothing to show that EZ has currently enlarge the ability to deal with their business. And the author either do not extinguish the adverse possibility of the two questions.

In brief, the author tends to provide evidences to question the business ability of ABC and further persuade the community to continue using EZ's services, however he is unable to have all evidence substantiated. Thus, I would claim that the choice of the community is correct for saving expenditure of trash collection on the basis of not degrading the quality of services.

[总体来说，价格这个攻击点被楼主忽略了。至少我认为这是一个很重要的攻击点。]


楼主有空改改我的吧，谢谢啊！

[ 本帖最后由 为了忘记 于 2007-6-11 00:37 编辑 ]

gluttonUID: 2330210

In this argument, the author, based on a series of evidences that the comparison of frequency of waste collecting, newly ordered trucks of EZ Disposal, and the so-called higher percentage of satisfaction from the public, suggests that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ's services. All evidences look reasonable, however, they can not bear in-depth scrutinizes. And as far as I am concerned, the logic of the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies.

First and foremost, （感觉argu第一段应该指出文章最主要的逻辑错误，但suvey是不是本文最主要的错误呢，感觉不是）the ostensive high satisfaction reflected from the town survey is too futile to substantiate the better services of EZ Disposal. As the author mentions nothing about the authenticity and reliability of the survey, I can freely argue that such survey might be conducted deliberately by EZ Disposal to convince the council to go on with their cooperation. The respondents or the individuals who received the survey were artificially selected to offer eulogies, and only such individuals received satisfying services.  While, in fact, these people might only make up of a small proportion of the whole town. And the overall services quality of EZ might not be so convincing as that in the survey.（这两个点感觉说服力不强，这样反驳，因为文中没有提及ABC的质量，这个suvey也就并不能表明ABC不能做的比EZ更好，感觉要好些） According to analysis above, the result of the survey has much suspicions so that it is too weak to support the author's conclusion .

Even grant EZ's formal convincing performance, already existing evidence also can not lend enough credence to the argument . In the first place, by stating  that EZ collects trash twice a week in contrast to ABC only once, the author tends to make it acceptable that EZ always provides better service than ABC from the frequency of collecting trash. However, the author unfairly neglects the points that the entirely quantity of trash collection does not only include frequency. Thus, I have enough sound reasons to doubt that though EZ collects more frequently, however because of small capacity of their trucks, the whole quantity of their twice collections may not catch up with ABC's once.  Another obvious suspicion upon this point involves in that Walnut Grove might not need a second time of collection for a small population and little waste that they produce, even grant the capacity of one collection of the two companies are comparable. Under this circumstance, the second collection of trash of EZ might be nothing but a waste, and bring no benefit to the residents in Walnut Grove.  Based on the comments above, the evidence-higher frequency of EZ's collection is still unsubstantial to have his argument convinced.

In the second place, the final evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks will bring overwhelming services over ABC is still open to doubt. The author deliberately includes the number of trucks that EZ has currently bought for tending to show that the additional quantity of trash collection of EZ and subliminally assumes that ABC orders none, however, that might not be the case.  Perhaps, ABC orders extra trucks ,if not more than, as many as those EZ orders, for the economical prosperity and the need of expanding business.  Concedingly speaking again, even the author offers extra statistic of the number of trucks that ABC orders, this evidence can not serve as support to make the argument logically reasonable. Similarly to the passages above, the author confronts two questions: the first one lies in that does EZ really need extra trucks to go on with their business? and the second  is that even the qualities  of trucks are comparable between the two companies, without precise comparison of the capacity of each truck（说车子容量的大小的这类它因感觉很不自然）, there is nothing to show that EZ has currently enlarge the ability to deal with their business. And the author either do not extinguish the adverse possibility of the two questions.

In brief, the author tends to provide evidences to question the business ability of ABC and further persuade the community to continue using EZ's services, however he is unable to have all evidence substantiated. Thus, I would claim that the choice of the community is correct for saving expenditure of trash collection on the basis of not degrading the quality of services.
作者虽然把文中的3个论据一个个的都批了一遍，但是感觉作者漏掉了一个最重要的需要批地东西，就是可能council建议用EZ的原因不是钱的因素，而是有其它的原因，文章没有指出这一点

cy23UID: 2310318

In this argument, the author, based on a series of evidences that the comparison of frequency of waste collecting, newly ordered trucks of EZ Disposal, and the so-called higher percentage of satisfaction from the public, suggests that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ's services. All evidences look reasonable, however, they can not bear in-depth scrutinizes. And as far as I am concerned, the logic of the argument suffers from several fatal fallacies.

First and foremost, the ostensive high satisfaction reflected from the town survey is too futile to substantiate the better services of EZ Disposal. As the author mentions nothing about the authenticity and reliability of the survey, I can freely argue that such survey might be conducted deliberately by EZ Disposal to convince the council to go on with their cooperation.对与准确性和真实性的攻击点有点低级， 我觉得可在最后附带提及一句就行了The respondents or the individuals who received the survey weremight be更严密 artificially selected to offer eulogies, and only such individuals received satisfying services.  While, in fact, these people might only make up of a small proportion of the whole town. And the overall services quality of EZ might not be so convincing as that in the survey. According to analysis above, the result of the survey has much suspicions so that it is too weak to support the author's conclusion .我觉得对调查的攻击放后面好些，一来考虑文中出现的先后，二来考虑错误的轻重，还有可以发现该调查没有与ABC形成比较，仅仅是单方面的

Even grant EZ's formal convincing performance, already existing evidence also can not lend enough credence to the argument . In the first place, by stating  that EZ collects trash twice a week in contrast to ABC only once, the author tends to make it acceptable that EZ always provides better service than ABC from the frequency of collecting trash. However, the author unfairly neglects the points that the entirely quantity of trash collection does not only include frequency. Thus, I have enough sound reasons to doubt that though EZ collects more frequently, however because of small capacity of their trucks, the whole quantity of their twice collections may not catch up with ABC's once.  Another obvious suspicion upon this point involves in that Walnut Grove might not need a second time of collection for a small population and little waste that they produce, even grant the capacity of one collection of the two companies are comparable. Under this circumstance, the second collection of trash of EZ might be nothing but a waste, and bring no benefit to the residents in Walnut Grove.  Based on the comments above, the evidence-higher frequency of EZ's collection is still unsubstantial to have his argument convinced.

In the second place, the final evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks will bring overwhelming services over ABC is still open to doubt. The author deliberately includes这词行么？ the number of trucks that EZ has currently bought for tending to show that the additional quantity of trash collection of EZ and subliminally assumes (assumptions) that ABC orders none, however, that might not be the case.  Perhaps, ABC orders extra trucks, if not more than, as many as those EZ orders, for the economical prosperity and the need of expanding business.  Concedingly speaking again, even the author offers extra statistic of the number of trucks that ABC orders, this evidence can not serve as support to make the argument logically reasonable. Similarly to the passages above, the author confronts two questions: the first one lies in that does EZ really need extra trucks to go on with their business? and the second  is that even the qualities  of trucks are comparable between the two companies, without precise comparison of the capacity of each truck, there is nothing to show that EZ has currently enlarge the ability to deal with their business. 卡车容量问题主体第二段提过，我觉得最好就集中在一处提到And the author either do not extinguish the adverse possibility of the two questions.

In brief, the author tends to provide evidences to question the business ability of ABC and further persuade the community to continue using EZ's services, however he is unable to have all evidence substantiated. Thus, I would claim that the choice of the community is correct for saving expenditure of trash collection on the basis of not degrading the quality of services.

我觉得这篇文章和你前几次相比稍逊色些
不过还是值得学习的
有空改下我的
BY小青蛙