Argument17 [中华龙第二次作业]

Ammmy2000UID: 2265680

Although Walnut Grove's town council has advocated using ABC Waste, the author recommends the continuous using EZ, which has been employed for trash collection services for ten years. To supporting his standpoints, he claims that EZ collects trash more often than ABC and EZ has ordered additional trucks. In addition, last year's town survey is showed to substantiate the exceptional services of EZ. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, reveals that none of them is credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, there is no evident to provide the necessary for collecting trash twice a week. It is possible that the population of the Walnut Grove is small and there is less trash should be collected in a week, which makes the reason of using EZ unconvincing as it stands. Unless the author could provide more information, such as the quantity of trash produced by per resident and the population in the town, we can hardly consider it is essential and paramount to collect trash twice a week.

Secondly, the author fails to substantiate the idea that the additional order for trucks will enhance the efficiency. The only cited reason is that EZ has ordered extra trucks, but we are never informed of the usage of these ones. They maybe used to develop extra operations; they maybe used to expand their trash collection area, which are hardy used in our town; they maybe ordered by other firms and EZ is only an agency. The usage, as I mentioned above, is probably the main reason for EZ to order extra track, which can never benefit our town.

Finally, we obtain less information from the letter about the accuracy of the last year's town survey. The author fails to provide us the scale, the approach and the representative of it. If the number of people who participated in the survey was small proportion of the population, the scale of it is too limited for us to credit the result of the research; if the approach survey used was in a prejudice way, it couldn't reflect the opinions of citizen; if the respondents were in the same age and had similar kind of jobs, the survey lose its representative which can't convince us the accuracy of it.

To sum up, the author hardly persuades us to believe the claims he recommends. To rule out these faults, he should provide more information about the necessary of collecting trash twice a week and the usage of the additional tracks. Moreover, the evidence about the accuracy of last year's town survey should also be taken into account to conclude a precise result.

weixchUID: 2104033

Although Walnut Grove's town council has advocated using ABC Waste, the author recommends the continuous using EZ, which has been employed for trash collection services for ten years. To supporting（support） his standpoints, he claims that EZ collects trash more often than ABC and EZ has ordered additional trucks. In addition, last year's town survey is showed to substantiate the exceptional services of EZ. (with) Close scrutiny of each of these facts, (I) reveals that none of them is credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, there is no evident to provide the necessary for  (there is no evidence to prove the necessity of ) collecting trash twice a week. It is possible that the population of the Walnut Grove is small and there is less trash should be collected (should be …改为 left for collecting) in a week, which makes the reason of using EZ unconvincing as it stands. Unless the author could provide more information, such as the quantity of trash produced by per resident and the population in the town, we can hardly consider it is essential and paramount to collect trash twice a week.

Secondly, the author fails to substantiate the idea that the additional order for trucks will enhance the efficiency. The only cited reason is that EZ has ordered extra trucks, but we are never informed of the usage of these ones. They maybe used to develop extra operations; they maybe used to expand their trash collection area, which are hardy(would be hardly) used in our town; they maybe ordered by other firms and EZ is only an agency(这一句句式有些单调了，而且与前后句联系不紧密). The usage, as I mentioned above, is probably the main reason for EZ to order extra track, which can never benefit our town.

Finally, we obtain less information from the letter about the accuracy of the last year's town survey. The author fails to provide us the scale, the approach and the representative of it. If the number of people who participated in the survey was small proportion of the population, the scale of it is too limited for us to credit the result of the research; if the approach survey used was in a prejudice way, it couldn't reflect the opinions of citizen; if the respondents were in the same age and had similar kind of jobs, the survey lose its representative which can't convince us the accuracy of it.

To sum up, the author hardly persuades us to believe the claims he recommends. To rule out (rule out用的不错)these faults, he should provide more information about the necessary（necessity） of collecting trash twice a week and the usage of the additional（可不可以换成excess） tracks(tracks?? Trucks). Moreover, the evidence about the accuracy of last year's town survey should also be taken into account to conclude a precise result.


分析还是比较到位，句子的内容较饱满，句子的衔接和连词的使用可以加强一下，其实这是Gter的通病了，但不是太大的毛病。