argument17

hepengmcUID: 203123

Argument17


In this argument the author points out that the town council is mistaken to switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste because EZ has raised their monthly fee from 2000 to 2500. And the author recommends that they should continue to use ABC. To support the recommendation the author cites a lot of evidence to show the advantages of using EZ. however, the recommendation  suffers some logic flaws in the following aspects.

To begin with, the author's recommendation is based on an assumption that the raising of monthly fee of EZ is the only reason for the town council’s decision to switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste. however, no evidence have been provided to support his assumption. even if the raising of fee of EZ is one of the factor that impede the town's further use of EZ, it maybe not the only reason. for instance, during the last ten years when EZ was on working, the environment of the town was not largely changed, and trashed problem was still not well solved. Maybe the technology EZ used was likely to arise severe air pollution or the technology EZ used to deal with trash problem was out of date.

Also the evidence the author cites to show that EZ is better than ABC is not warranted. although EZ collected trash twice a week, it does not mean that EZ works better than ABC, which collected trash once a week. it is quite possible that EZ just concentrated on a specific region, while ABC was providing service to the whole town. Maybe the worker in EZ is not that professional, even if they did twice a week, the efficiency was not as good as that of ABC. Moreover, the cars ABC owns may have equipped with modern apparatus, which would greatly improve the  efficiency of working and create little air pollution. Even if either of the situation mentioned is true, then the author's recommendation will absolutely be weakened.

Moreover the survey is questionable. how many people have been interviewed in this survey was not provided. If the number of people is too small, it is certainly not persuasive to support the author's conclusion. even if the survey is much broader, was it limited in some certain region, where the EZ probably provided a better service? Also whether the survey was contain about the citizens’ evaluation of ABC’s work is not provided. It is possible that more people in the survey have shown that they thought the performance of ABC was excellent.

In conclusion, the author's recommendation is not convincing enough. To better support the recommendation the author has to provide more evidence to show that the rasing of fee is the only factor for the town council's choice for ABC, and also some concrete information about the working situation about EZ should be provided. moreover, the details of the survey should be offered.

yanhuangbabyUID: 178305

In this argument the author points out that the town council is mistaken to switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste because EZ has raised their monthly fee from 2000 to 2500. And the author recommends that they should continue to use ABC. To support the recommendation the author cites a lot of evidence to show the advantages of using EZ. however, the recommendation  suffers some logic flaws in the following aspects.

To begin with, the author's recommendation is based on an assumption that the raising of monthly fee of EZ is the only reason for the town council’s decision to switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste. however, no evidence have been provided to support his assumption. even if the raising of fee of EZ is one of the factor that impede the town's further use of EZ, it maybe not the only reason. for instance, during the last ten years when EZ was on working, the environment of the town was not largely changed, and trashed problem was still not well solved. Maybe the technology EZ used was likely to arise severe air pollution or the technology EZ used to deal with trash problem was out of date.

Also the evidence the author cites to show that EZ is better than ABC is not warranted. although EZ collected trash twice a week, it does not mean that EZ works better than ABC, which collected trash once a week. it is quite possible that EZ just concentrated on a specific region, while ABC was providing service to the whole town. Maybe the worker in EZ is not that professional, even if they did twice a week, the efficiency was not as good as that of ABC. Moreover, the cars ABC owns may have equipped with modern apparatus, which would greatly improve the  efficiency of working and create改为cause little air pollution. Even去掉 if either of the situation mentioned is true, then the author's recommendation will absolutely be weakened.

Moreover the survey is questionable. how many people have been interviewed in this survey was not provided. If the number of people is too small, it is certainly not persuasive to support the author's conclusion. even if the survey is much broader, was it limited in some certain region, where the EZ probably provided a better service? （这句还是不用疑问句比较好，用probably做开头吧）Also whether the survey was contain about the citizens’ evaluation of ABC’s work is not provided. It is possible that more people in the survey have shown that they thought the performance of ABC was excellent.

In conclusion, the author's recommendation is not convincing enough. To better support the recommendation the author has to provide more evidence to show that the rasing of fee is the only factor for the town council's choice for ABC, and also some concrete information about the working situation about EZ should be provided. moreover, the details of the survey should be offered.

很流畅，挑不出啥错误来了
我的  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
7号的作业，写得很痛苦

GracielinUID: 2155155

In this argument the author points out that the town council is mistaken to switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste because EZ has raised their monthly fee from 2000 to 2500. And the author recommends that they should continue to use ABC. To support the recommendation the author cites a lot of evidence to show the advantages of using EZ. however, the recommendation  suffers some logic flaws in the following aspects.

To begin with, the author's recommendation is based on an assumption that the raising of monthly fee of EZ is the only reason for the town council’s decision to switch from EZ disposal to ABC Waste. however, no evidence have been provided to support his assumption. even if the raising of fee of EZ is one of the factor that impede the town's further use of EZ, it maybe not the only reason.(感觉用这个句子it may not be the only reason.更通顺，但是这里和第一句话比较重复，建议改成it is entirely possible that other causes exist.) for instance, during the last ten years when EZ was on working, the environment of the town was not largely changed, and trashed problem was still not well solved. Maybe the technology EZ used was likely to arise severe air pollution or the technology EZ used to deal with trash problem was out of date.

Also the evidence the author cites to show that EZ is better than ABC is not warranted. although EZ collected trash twice a week, it does not mean that EZ works better than ABC, which collected trash once a week. it is quite possible that EZ just concentrated on a specific region, while ABC was providing service to the whole town. Maybe the worker in EZ is not that professional, even if they did twice a week, the efficiency was not as good as that of ABC. Moreover, the cars ABC owns may have equipped with modern apparatus, which would greatly improve the  efficiency of working and create little air pollution. Even if either of the situation mentioned is true, then the author's recommendation will absolutely be weakened.

Moreover the survey is questionable. how many people have been interviewed in this survey was not provided. If the number of people is too small, it is certainly not persuasive to support the author's conclusion. even if the survey is much broader, was it limited in some certain region, where the EZ probably provided a better service? Also whether the survey was containing about the citizens’ evaluation of ABC’s work is not provided. It is possible that more people in the survey have shown that they thought the performance of ABC was excellent.

In conclusion, the author's recommendation is not convincing enough. To better support the recommendation the author has to provide more evidence to show that the raising of fee is the only factor for the town council's choice for ABC, and also some concrete information about the working situation about EZ should be provided. moreover, the details of the survey should be offered.
你的文章我觉得论证得还可以，但是语言方面可能比较欠缺：）

关于论证的主要矛盾，我还是有疑问。我觉得关于收集次数和卡车拥有量应该放在一起论证，我的5段可以前提，即先讲收费提高是否是唯一的原因，但是关于调查的可能要放在最后了。