argument17,欢迎来拍

fufusbUID: 184123

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."
WORDS: 486          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-3-25

In this letter, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove town should continue to utilize EZ instead of switching to ABC Waste. To substantiate this assertion, the arguer supplies several evidences and analyzes these facts to convince us. However, this seemingly warranted argument is still showing several logical and reasonable flaws which are as follows.

First, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice which is more than ABC. But this fact does not indicate that whether it is necessary to collect trash twice a week. It is more likely that the trash produced every week needs only one collection and twice is too much and is a waste of time and money. And if this more collection results the increase of the monthly fee of EZ, the Walnut Grove should not consider this EZ Company. Moreover, if the EZ collects twice a week because that it does not carefully treat its task every time but remain some trash in town for the next time collection, the town should not choose it.

Second, the arguer gives the business information about EZ that it has ordered additional trucks to current 20 trucks. Also it shows the same questions that whether the additional trucks is necessary for the town and whether it is a waste to get more trucks than enough. What is more, the number of trucks does not prove the services to be nice. And without eliminating the possibility that the ABC' trucks own more volumes than EZ's, we can not establish the confidence for the capacity of EZ Disposal's trucks.

Thirdly, the arguer further provides a survey to support his claim. In the survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. This proof still lacks of power. There are many possibilities to make this proof weak. For example, the arguer does not explain how the survey was undertaken, who the respondents were and how the representative of this statistics is. It is highly possible that the respondents of this survey were only a small part of the residence of the town. It is even highly possible that the respondents of this survey were those who were content with EZ's services, while most people of the town and at the same time are those who dissatisfied with this company were not willing to participate in this survey. Even assuming that this survey was solid, it is still can not prove that in this year, the percent of people who satisfy with EZ' performance remains very high, for this survey stand for last year's condition.

It is not acceptable for this claim made by the arguer, for it is lack of several most important factors which are important to value a company. The arguer should supply more precise and wide parallel information of both the two companies to draw the final conclusion. Moreover, these proofs appears in this argument need carefully consideration.

estimaterUID: 2158268

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."

In this letter, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove town should continue to utilize EZ instead of switching to ABC Waste. To substantiate this assertion, the arguer supplies several evidences and analyzes these facts to convince us. However, this seemingly warranted argument is still showing suffering from several logical and reasonable flaws which are as follows. 开头很简洁

First, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice which is more than ABC. But this fact does not indicate that whether it is necessary to collect trash twice a week. It is more likely that the trash produced every week needs only one collection and twice is too much and is a waste of time and money. <and, and, and 这句话有些重复，不太通顺> And if this more collection results in the increase of the monthly fee of EZ, the Walnut Grove should not consider this EZ Company. Moreover, if the EZ collects twice a week because that it does not carefully treat its task every time but remain some trash in town for the next time collection, the town should not choose it. 第一段驳斥每星期收集两次垃圾的必要性，感觉是一个不易展开的错误点。开始找最突出的错误会不会好一些，可不按顺序逐条批驳。

Second, the arguer gives the business information about EZ that it has ordered additional trucks to current 20 trucks. Also it shows the same questions that whether the additional trucks is necessary for the town and whether it is a waste to get more trucks than enough. What is more, the number of trucks does not prove the services to be nice. And without eliminating the possibility that the ABC' trucks own more volumes than EZ's, we can not establish the confidence for the capacity of EZ Disposal's trucks. 两部分好象是一个意思。第二段驳斥依然有些单薄。

Thirdly, the arguer further provides a survey to support his claim.in further support of the conclusion, the arguer provides In the survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. This proof still lacks of power. There are many possibilities to make this proof weak. 两句合并 For example, the arguer does not explain how the survey was undertaken, who the respondents were and how the representative of this statistics<representative of these respondents或 reliability of this statistics> is. It is highly possible that the respondents of this survey were only a small part of the residence residents of the town. It is even highly possible that the respondents of this survey were those who were content with EZ's services, while most people of the town and at the same time are those who dissatisfied with this company were not willing to participate in this survey. Even assuming that this survey was solid, it is still can not prove that in this year, the percent of people who satisfy with EZ' performance remains very high, for this survey stand for last year's condition. 论述充分，但语言有些重复。

It is not acceptable for this the claim made by the arguer, for it is lack lacks of several most important factors which are important to value a company. The arguer should supply more precise and wide parallel information of both the two companies to draw the final conclusion. Moreover, these proofs appears in this argument need carefully more careful consideration. 结尾有些匆促，可能时间太紧张。

总体上，论述不太充分，语言有些重复。可能是限时的原因，楼主加油练练速度！还有一个可驳斥点：other relevant factors that account for the council switching choice besides monthly fee
对了，格式要求argument数字 后面跟空格然后是说明 例如Argument17 欢迎来拍
数字后面不要加逗号了，issue也是
如果给出提纲，改的时候就不用即时总结段意啦

[ 本帖最后由 estimater 于 2006-3-26 12:34 编辑 ]

fufusbUID: 184123

非常谢谢estimater的建议。
大家一起加油