argument17 【loveaw】第二次作业

njuliuyangUID: 2300567

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."

提纲：1.每周两次服务是否必要
         2.订的卡车是否要投入使用，未提供ABC的情况
         3.survey是否可靠
WORDS: 462         

In spite of raised monthly fee charged by EZ, the author cherishes the claim that Walnut Grove's town council should continue employing EZ rather than ABC on the ground that EZ provides one more trash collection service per week than ABC and EZ has ordered additional trucks. What's more, in light of the survey's result, the author comes to the conclusion that continuing using EZ will be a wise choice. However, the argument is flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the author fails to lend any strong support to the assumption that local residents benefit from the additional service provided by EZ. Perhaps EZ fails to perform a satisfactory service the first time every week thoroughly so that it has to collect trash twice per week. It is also entirely possible that it is just enough for local inhabitants that collecting trash only once a week. That's to say, the additional service provided by EZ is probably neither necessary nor  beneficial to local citizens.  Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot substantiate the conclusion that they should choose EZ rather than ABC.

Another point the author fails to take into account is that whether the additional trucks ordered by EZ will be devoted to collecting trash. As a consequence, we have a good reason to doubt if EZ will devote those trucks to collecting trash or all of them will be used to do so at least.  Moreover, the author provides no clear information regarding whether ABC has ordered more trucks. There is a good chance that ABC has ordered as many trucks as EZ has, or even more trucks than EZ has. Lacking such relevant indispensable information, I simply cannot be swayed by the conclusion that local dwellers should continue using EZ rather than ABC.

Finally, the author fails to prove the survey's result is statistically reliable.  Perhaps the respondents participating in the survey is not representative enough to reflect the overall local residents' attitude. Also, it is entirely possible that a majority of local inhabitants who were dissatisfied with EZ's performance are excluded or did not respond to the survey at all. Failing to substantiate the credibility of the survey's result, the author cannot convince me that local residents should choose EZ .

In sum, to justify the conclusion, the author should lend support to the assumptions that the survey's result is reliablet, and that the additional service provided by EZ is necessary and beneficial to local inhabitants. Furthermore, to better assess the argument, it would be of great use to know concrete information concerning if EZ will devote  all of those trucks to collecting trash as well as if ABC has odered additional trucks which will be put to use. Otherwise, the conclusion is dubious at best.

[ 本帖最后由 njuliuyang 于 2007-2-10 10:21 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

In spite of raised monthly fee charged by EZ, the author cherishes the claim that Walnut Grove's town council should continue employing EZ rather than ABC on the ground that EZ provides one more trash collection service per week than ABC and EZ has ordered additional trucks. What's more, in light of the survey's result, the author comes to the conclusion that continuing using EZ will be a wise choice. 复述题目很成功,句式不错  However, the argument is flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the author fails to lend any strong support to the assumption that local residents benefit from the additional service provided by EZ. Perhaps EZ fails to perform a satisfactory service the first time every week thoroughly so that it has to collect trash twice per week. It is also entirely possible that it is just enough for local inhabitants that collecting trash only once a week. That's 尽量写成 That is to say, the additional service provided by EZ is probably neither necessary nor  beneficial to local citizens.  Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot substantiate the conclusion that they should choose EZ rather than ABC. 清晰

Another point the author fails to take into account is that whether the additional trucks ordered by EZ will be devoted to collecting trash. 应该强调一下是不是为了WG收集垃圾 As a consequence, we have a good reason to doubt if EZ will devote those trucks to collecting trash or all of them will be used to do so at least.  Moreover, the author provides no clear information regarding whether ABC has ordered more trucks. There is a good chance that ABC has ordered as many trucks as EZ has, or even more trucks than EZ has.  Lacking such relevant indispensable information, I simply simply用在这里是什么意思? cannot be swayed by the conclusion that local dwellers should continue using EZ rather than ABC.

Finally, the author fails to prove the survey's result is statistically reliable.  Perhaps the respondents participating in the survey is not representative enough to reflect the overall local residents' attitude. Also, it is entirely possible that a majority of local inhabitants who were dissatisfied with EZ's performance are excluded or did not respond to the survey at all. Failing to substantiate the credibility of the survey's result, the author cannot convince me that local residents should choose EZ .

In sum, to justify the conclusion, the author should lend support to the assumptions that the survey's result is reliablet, and that the additional service provided by EZ is necessary and beneficial to local inhabitants. Furthermore, to better assess the argument, it would be of great use to know concrete information concerning if EZ will devote  all of those trucks to collecting trash as well as if ABC has odered additional trucks which will be put to use. Otherwise, the conclusion is dubious at best.

写的完全足够了,能有这个水平下面就是限时了^_^

njuliuyangUID: 2300567

In spite of raised monthly fee charged by EZ, the author cherishes the claim that Walnut Grove's town (WG town) council should continue employing EZ rather than ABC on the ground that EZ provides one more trash collection service per week than ABC and EZ has ordered additional trucks. What's more, in light of the survey's result, the author comes to the conclusion that continuing using EZ will be a wise choice. However, the argument is flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the author fails to lend any strong support to the assumption that local residents benefit from the additional service provided by EZ. Perhaps EZ fails to perform a satisfactory service the first time every week thoroughly so that it has to collect trash twice per week. It is also entirely possible that it is just enough for local inhabitants that collecting trash only once a week. That is to say, the additional service provided by EZ is probably neither necessary nor  beneficial to local citizens.  Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot substantiate the conclusion that they should choose EZ rather than ABC.

Another point the author fails to take into account is that whether the additional trucks ordered by EZ will be devoted to collecting trash for WG town. As a consequence, we have a good reason to doubt if EZ will devote those trucks to collecting trash or all of them will be used to do so at least.  Moreover, the author provides no clear information regarding whether ABC has ordered more trucks. There is a good chance that ABC has ordered as many trucks as EZ has, or even more trucks than EZ has.  Lacking such relevant indispensable information, I cannot be swayed by the conclusion that local dwellers should continue using EZ rather than ABC.

Finally, the author fails to prove the survey's result is statistically reliable.  Perhaps the respondents participating in the survey is not representative enough to reflect the overall local residents' attitude. Also, it is entirely possible that a majority of local inhabitants who were dissatisfied with EZ's performance are excluded or did not respond to the survey at all. Failing to substantiate the credibility of the survey's result, the author cannot convince me that local residents should choose EZ.

In sum, to justify the conclusion, the author should lend support to the assumptions that the survey's result is reliable, and that the additional service provided by EZ is necessary and beneficial to local inhabitants. Furthermore, to better assess the argument, it would be of great use to know concrete information concerning if EZ will devote  all of those trucks to collecting trash as well as if ABC has ordered additional trucks which will be put to use. Otherwise, the conclusion is dubious at best.