argument17 第一篇 求拍~~

haipiaoxiaoUID: 2132088

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."


The author concluded that they should still use EZ, which depends on the assumption that Walnut Grove's town council made a mistake to switch to ABC Waste because of the recently increase of EZ' monthly fee. The author further argued that EZ collects trash once more than ABC per month, and EZ ordered additional trucks. Then the author cites a survey to show that EZ provides exceptional service. However, the reasoning suffers several flaws as follows.
       
First of all, the assertion that the council is mistaken depends on the assumption that the council made the decision just because of the mere fact that EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500. However, we are not informed whether it is the case. For one thing, we don't know if there is extra fee except the monthly fee, so we cannot indicate the payment will be more if the council swatches. Moreover, the cost is only one of many factors in choosing a waste collecting company. The other factors include service, credit, as well as how it will deals with the waste. For as a government, it is obliged to take pollution in to account. It is likely that ABC finds a better way to dispose the waste, so the government changed their mind. In short, without more information about why the government made such switch, the author can not regard its decision as a mistake.

Secondly, the fact that EZ ordered an extra number of trucks does not make any sense when no evidence is provided if ABC will order the same amount, if not more. Perhaps ABC has also ordered several more trucks whose number exceeds that of what EZ has ordered. Moreover, the content of a truck vary from type to type. To convincing us EZ has a superior ability to collect waste, more evidence involves those factors must be showed.

Thirdly, the author's conclusion that EZ enjoys exceptional service relies on a survey which is statistically unreliable. the author failed to provide any information that how the survey was conducted, how the sample was selected, as well as evidence that the respondents are representative of the overall EZ' customers. Without evidence of its reliability of the survey, it cannot lend any strong support to the author's argument. Furthermore, despite of EZ' unwarranted-exceptional service, no evidence proves ABC's serves worse, it is quite possible that ABC' boasts a more exceptional service so the government switched EZ to it.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-2-25 23:46 编辑 ]

wwltlUID: 2156586

The author concluded that they should still use EZ, which depends on the assumption that Walnut Grove's town council made a mistake to switch to ABC Waste because of the recently increase of EZ' monthly fee. The author further argued that EZ collects trash once more than ABC per month, and EZ ordered additional trucks. Then the author cites a survey to show that EZ provides exceptional service. However, the reasoning suffers several flaws as follows.
        
First of all, the assertion that the council is mistaken depends on the assumption that the council made the decision just because of the mere fact that EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500. However, we are not informed whether it is the case. For one thing, we don't know if there is extra fee except the monthly fee, so we cannot indicate the payment will be more if the council swatches. Moreover, the cost is only one of many factors in choosing a waste collecting company. The other factors include service, credit, as well as how it will deals with the waste. For as a government, it is obliged to take pollution in to account. It is likely that ABC finds a better way to dispose the waste, so the government changed their mind. In short, without more information about why the government made such switch, the author can not regard its decision as a mistake.
我自己在写文章时，也在犹豫这一点要不要用。因为我不确第一句话在原文里属于事实陈述，还是属于作者assumption的一部分。不过，如何处理垃圾这一点我觉得抓得很好。

Secondly, the fact that EZ ordered an extra number of trucks does not make any sense when no evidence is provided if ABC will order the same amount, if not more.（这句读着有点别扭） Perhaps ABC has also ordered several more trucks whose number exceeds that of what EZ has ordered. Moreover, the content of a truck vary from type to type. To convincing us EZ has a superior ability to collect waste, more evidence involves those factors must be showed.

Thirdly, the author's conclusion that EZ enjoys exceptional service relies on a survey which is statistically unreliable. the author failed to provide any information that how the survey was conducted, how the sample was selected, as well as evidence that the respondents are representative of the overall EZ' customers. Without evidence of its reliability of the survey, it cannot lend any strong support to the author's argument. Furthermore, despite of EZ' unwarranted-exceptional service, no evidence proves ABC's serves worse, it is quite possible that ABC' boasts a more exceptional service so the government switched EZ to it.
文章里得错误很少，进步多了。
你在后面两个论点得论证思路比我开，向你学习^-^
不过，你怎么没用那个一星期受两次和一星期收一次得比较啊，是不是觉得没办法驳这一点？我写得时候也有点这样得感觉，不过，后来还是决定用。