Argument17 【07-10G 梦开始的地方】 第3次作文 by sunsun22007

sunsun22007UID: 2302450

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、  作者假设EZ每周收两次垃圾以及定购更多车辆使其有理由提高收费，然而收两次垃圾可能超出该地区的需求，另一方面，订购更多车辆可能只是由于其必须更换的设备需求。
2、  即使承认EZ有理由提高其收费，市委改为与abc的签约可能由于其他原因，也许出于对环保的考虑，abc更加环保处理垃圾。
3、  文中提供的调查结论有一定问题。由于市委与ez签约长达十年，对于EZ表现满意不代表其值得继续签约，由于其回应者可能只是EZ用户，而不是全部的需要收集垃圾的用户，回应者可能缺乏比较。

This analysis presents a relatively sound case for arguing that the town council should cintinue using EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste, regardless of its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2500. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, I find  this article logically unconvincing in at least three critical aspects.

First of all, the author's assertion relies on the assumption that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC collects once, besides, EZ has ordered additional trucks cause EZ should raised its monthly fee. Nevertheless, we can hardly find any evidence that it’s not redundant for EZ Disposal to do so. It is entirely possible that there are might not be so much trash as to collect twice a week. For that matter, the town council have no reason to spent much money on EZ to collect twice. Moreover, the EZ has ordered additional trucks do not necessarily indicate that they should raised its monthly fee. Perhaps the 20 trucks EZ Disposal’s has been old and out of service, the additional trucks is just for replace some of the abandoned trucks rather than to add new into the fleet. In either case, the town council should not spent much money to EZ Disposal.

In addition, even though EZ has enough evidence to raise its monthly fee, the town council advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste might not because of its raising fee. It is highly possible that ABC Waste disposal trash with a new approach which avoid environmental pollution rather than the traditional key of EZ’s way . If it is the case, the town council’s selection might as a result of environmental consideration. In short, lacking much information about EZ and ABC, the author cannot assert that the town council switch for considering monthly fee increasing.

Finally, the author cites a last year’s town survey that 80% of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied ” with EZ’s performance complishes nothing toward bolstering the assertion. The town residents are the long-term customer of the EZ, and they might not make an analogy between EZ and the other company, especially considered that EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years. In other words, the 80 percent respondents are the town resident rather than the overall population of EZ Disposal’s customers. Without ruling out other possible for the 80% agreements, the author cannot convince me on the basis of the EZ provides exceptional service, or that the town council should continue using EZ.

In conclusion, this argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions and unwarranted evidence that render it fails to substantiate his assertion. To validate it, further investigation and analysis are needed. To better evaluate the argument I would need to know more information about the EZ Disposal, the arguer would need to provide clear evidence that town council’s selection is because of the monthly fee increase. Additionally, to strengthen the argument we would need more information about the respondents in the town survey.
Words 512

为什么我们组总是布置我发过的文..............

mengzhou1110UID: 2346172

提纲：
1、  作者假设EZ每周收两次垃圾以及定购更多车辆使其有理由提高收费，然而收两次垃圾可能超出该地区的需求，另一方面，订购更多车辆可能只是由于其必须更换的设备需求。
2、  即使承认EZ有理由提高其收费，市委改为与abc的签约可能由于其他原因，也许出于对环保的考虑，abc更加环保处理垃圾。
3、  文中提供的调查结论有一定问题。由于市委与ez签约长达十年，对于EZ表现满意不代表其值得继续签约，由于其回应者可能只是EZ用户，而不是全部的需要收集垃圾的用户，回应者可能缺乏比较。

This analysis presents a relatively sound case for arguing that the town council should cintinue using EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste, regardless of its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2500. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, I find  this article logically unconvincing in at least three critical aspects.(很好,开头简洁,点题)

First of all, the author's assertion relies on the assumption that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC collects once, besides, EZ has ordered additional trucks cause EZ should raised its monthly fee(这句里的cause是导致的意思？那整句话不是Ｎ个主语了？）. Nevertheless, we can hardly find any evidence that it’s not redundant for EZ Disposal to do so. It is entirely possible that there are（多余） might not be（这两个词换一下顺序） so much trash as to collect twice a week.（和下句有些重复，可以去掉直接接上后面） For that matter, the town council have no reason to spent much money on EZ to collect twice. Moreover, the EZ has ordered additional trucks （整个完整句做主语？）do not necessarily indicate that they should raised its monthly fee. Perhaps the 20 trucks EZ Disposal’s has been old and out of service, the additional trucks is just for replace some of the abandoned trucks rather than to add new into the fleet. In either case, the town council should not spent much money to EZ Disposal.

In addition, even though EZ has enough evidence to raise its monthly fee, the town council advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste might not because of its raising fee. It is highly possible that ABC Waste disposal trash with a new approach which avoid environmental pollution rather than the traditional key of EZ’s way . If it is the case, the town council’s selection might as a result of environmental consideration. In short, lacking much information about EZ and ABC, the author cannot assert that the town council switch for considering monthly fee increasing.（攻击得好，很多人都没找出这一点缺陷）

Finally, the author cites a last year’s town survey that 80% of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied ” with EZ’s performance complishes nothing toward bolstering the assertion. The town residents are the long-term customer of the EZ, and they might not make an analogy between EZ and the other company, especially considered that EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years. In other words, the 80 percent respondents are the town resident rather than the overall population of EZ Disposal’s customers. Without ruling out other possible（possibility) for the 80% agreements, the author cannot convince me on the basis of the EZ provides (去掉）exceptional service, or that the town council should continue using EZ.

In conclusion, this argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions and unwarranted evidence that render it fails to substantiate his assertion. To validate it, further investigation and analysis are needed. To better evaluate the argument（和前面那句有点重复，建议可以直接接） I would need to know more information about the EZ Disposal, the arguer would need to provide clear evidence that town council’s selection is because of the monthly fee increase. Additionally, to strengthen the argument we would need more information about the respondents（＋resource) in the town survey.(这段need用得太频繁，建议可以用其他词语代替）


建议：
总的来说，作者思路清晰，表达比较清楚．
需要改进的是在攻击缺陷时，希望能更详细的举一些反例，要不显得有点空洞．

Words 512