argument17【07-10G 梦开始的地方】 第3次作文 by qiushuhao999

qiushuhao999UID: 2355201

argument17【07-10G 梦开始的地方】 第3次作文 by qiushuhao999
17The 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."
   Words: 448    Times: 2h
提纲：1：有没有必要collects trash twice a week：
      2：a fleet of 20 trucks与收集垃圾相关吗？
      3：respondents仅仅见过EZ的，没有用过ABC的，并不能说明ABC的不吸引他们。

The letter compared EZ which has provided trash collecting service for the past ten years with ABC and asserted that the town council’s decision to switch to ABC was wrong. It provides three evidences including (1) EZ collects rubbish more times than ABC; (2)EZ has ordered more trucks; (3) EZ won most of the respondents. Seemingly, the letter has its rationality to which if paying detailed attention to, it reveals that none of them is credible.

First, though EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC once, it can not prove that EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps ABC is more careful than EZ while it picks up the rubbish and they do not need to do it again, or perhaps the habits of the locals is to throw trash once a week which is sufficient for ABC and it is not necessary to do twice. Moreover, maybe the second time for EZ is to scrutiny their job for the first time which in turns indicates that the workers of EZ is not cautious enough when they do the job. Since the author can not prove the necessities for collecting the trash twice, I can not agree with him under the condition that may be a waste of time and money.

Secondly, the author depends on the situation that EZ has 20 trucks and it would like to have more and determines that EZ can provide better service than ABC. This is not evident enough to persuade me into his viewpoint since I strongly doubts the relation between having more trucks and collecting the waste. Perhaps ABC has advanced equipment in their trucks and the number of trucks available is enough. Perhaps EZ’s intention to pursue new trucks is to replace the old ones. Or perhaps its new perchase is for other use. For the possibilities that states above, the author can not convince me that the larger number of trucks can provide better service.

Thirdly, the author tries to say that EZ has won the majority of locals from the survey under the circumcirdences that the respondents have not seen ABC before. This accomplishes nothing toward bolstering EZ and thus it cannot acclaim the advantage of EZ to ABC.

In sum, the viewpoint relies on certain uncertain conditions that render it unconvincing as it stands. If the author wants to convince me he has to provide clear evidences that it is necessary to collect the rubbish twice a week and the additional trucks of EZ are well used for the matter. Beside, to better assess the strength of the recommendation, more information about the individuals that have experience with both EZ and ABC will be helpful.

messiah229UID: 2209538

The letter compared EZ which has provided trash collecting service for the past ten years with ABC and asserted that the town council’s decision to switch to ABC was wrong. It provides three evidences including (1) EZ collects rubbish more times than ABC; (2)EZ has ordered more trucks; (3) EZ won most of the respondents. (三个论据分析得很清楚)Seemingly, the letter has its rationality to which if paying detailed attention to, it reveals that none of them is credible.

First, though EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC once, it can not prove that EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps ABC is more careful than EZ while it picks up the rubbish and they do not need to do it again, or perhaps the habits of the locals is to throw trash once a week which is sufficient for ABC and it is not necessary to do twice. Moreover, maybe the second time for EZ is to scrutiny their job for the first time which in turns indicates that the workers of EZ is not cautious enough when they do the job. (三个他因都列举得不错)Since the author can not prove the necessities for collecting the trash twice, I can not agree with him under the condition that may be a waste of time and money.

Secondly, the author depends on the situation that EZ has 20 trucks and it would like to have more and determines that EZ can provide better service than ABC. This is not evident enough (The evidence is not enough)to persuade me into his viewpoint since I strongly doubts the relation between having more trucks and collecting the waste. Perhaps ABC has advanced equipment in their trucks and the number of trucks available is enough. Perhaps EZ’s intention to pursue new trucks is to replace the old ones. Or perhaps its new perchase is for other use. For the possibilities that states above, the author can not convince me that the larger number of trucks can provide better service.

Thirdly, the author tries to say that EZ has won the majority of locals from the survey under the circumcirdences that the respondents have not seen ABC before. This accomplishes nothing toward bolstering EZ and thus it cannot acclaim the advantage of EZ to ABC.(这一点的反驳显得有点单薄,可以再展开论证一下,比如ABC有居民和作者没有了解到的优点 等等)

In sum, the viewpoint relies on certain uncertain conditions that render it unconvincing as it stands. If the author wants to convince me he has to provide clear evidences that it is necessary to collect the rubbish twice a week and the additional trucks of EZ are well used for the matter. Besides, to better assess the strength of the recommendation, more information about the individuals that have experience with both EZ and ABC will be helpful.

总结,文章没有什么大的语法毛病,语句通畅,思路清晰
不足的地方是句式有些单调,perhaps就用了5,6次之多,其实还有it is entirely possible that...或者the author can't convince us unless he exlude the possibility that..等等表示他因的句式
另外,LZ是用了多长时间完成这篇作文的? 末尾的两段感觉比较仓促
呵呵 祝期末考试成功~