argument17....fantasy group...必回拍

foreveraUID: 202035

17.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 argument, based on the parallel comparisons between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste, the author asserts that Walnut Grove’s town council has a unsuccessful choice of trash collection services-ABC Waste. At the first glance, the claim of the author seems reasonable, but with further analysis, the author’s logic suffers from several fallacies as follows.

Primarily, the frequency of trash collecting does not necessarily equal to the service quality. It is possibly needless to collect trash twice a week, and according to the present capability of the trash collecting trucks, only once a week of collection is enough to accomplish the collection. Additionally, I can not exclude the possibility that the capability of ABC’s trucks is much larger than that of EZ’s trucks, to this extent, even of a lower frequency of collection; the amount of trash collection of ABC is no less than EZ at least. Therefore, it is unreasonable to cite that the service of ABC is insufficient.

What’s more, the author fails to provide enough information in the comparison and necessity of additionally ordered trucks. On one hand, no evidence is presented to convince me that ABC does not order matching amount of additional trucks as EZ. ABC might have ordered more trucks than EZ on the contrary.  Under this circumstance, ABC is more likely to offer service of high quality. On the other hand, slimily to paragraph one, for the unknown amount of trash in Walnut Grove, whether the extra trucks are useful also leaves open to doubt. The reality might reveal that the present trucks are adequate to finish collecting all the trash in Walnut Grove. As a result, it is so hasty for the author to claim that EZ Disposal has a better collecting ability.

Additionally, the result of the survey, which is designed to show the satisfying degree of trash collection companies, is still unconvincing for the uncertainty of respondents. The conductor of the survey might deliberately select the public who prefer EZ’s services, so the high percentage of satisfaction only stands for the satisfying degree of the very group, but not the whole Walnut Grove. Further, it can not be exclude that those who were satisfied with EZ’s service last year are still support EZ nowadays.

Then, under this circumstance, the choice of Walnut Grove's town council is reasonable. As common sense, people would pursue more profit with less expenditure. So the service of EZ, of uncertain so-called better quality but higher price, is less likely to be welcomed by the public and Walnut Grove's town council. Thus, the author is unfairly asserting that Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken in choosing trash Collection Company.

In conclusion, to make the argument more logical and convincing, the author needs to offer extra detailed comparison between ABC Waste and EZ Disposal in ability of trash collection and satisfying degree of the two companies.

[ Last edited by forevera on 2005-8-28 at 09:59 ]

batterflyUID: 196681

In this argument（这个开头很多，听说是新东方的模版开头，最好换一下吧）, based on the parallel comparisons between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste, the author asserts that Walnut Grove’s town council has a unsuccessful choice of trash collection services-ABC Waste. At the first glance, the claim of the author seems reasonable, but with further analysis, the author’s logic suffers from several fallacies as follows.（开头不错）

Primarily, the frequency of trash collecting does not necessarily equal to the service quality. It is possibly needless to collect trash twice a week, and according to the present capability of the trash collecting trucks, only once a week of collection is enough to accomplish the collection. Additionally, I can （似乎一般都是说论者没有排除这种可能性吧）not exclude the possibility that the capability of ABC’s trucks is much larger than that of EZ’s trucks, to this extent, even of a lower frequency of collection; the amount of trash collection of ABC is no less than EZ at least. Therefore, it is unreasonable to cite that the service of ABC is insufficient.

What’s more, the author fails to provide enough information in the comparison and necessity of additionally ordered trucks. On one hand, no evidence is presented to convince me that ABC does not order matching（我知道你想说相应数量的，但是matching 好像没有这种用法。可以用简单的句型阿，the same amount as） amount of additional trucks as EZ. Perhaps ABC might have ordered more trucks than EZ on the contrary.  Under this circumstance, ABC is more likely to offer service of high quality. On the other hand, slimily to paragraph one, for the unknown amount of trash in Walnut Grove, whether the extra trucks are useful also leaves open to doubt. The reality might reveal that the present trucks are adequate to finish collecting all the trash in Walnut Grove. As a result, it is so hasty for the author to claim that EZ Disposal has a better collecting ability.(我觉得可以先说：车子的数量并不说明服务的质量，然后even if ……, 再接着一段的论述，你觉得呢？？)

Additionally, the result of the survey, which is designed to show the satisfying degree of trash collection companies, is still unconvincing for the uncertainty of respondents. The conductor of the survey might deliberately select the public who prefer EZ’s services, so the high percentage of satisfaction only stands for the satisfying degree of the very group, but not the whole Walnut Grove. Further, it can not be exclude that those who were satisfied with EZ’s service last year are still support EZ nowadays.（这段挺清楚的哦）

Then, under this circumstance, the choice of Walnut Grove's town council（最好说清楚是什么选择，是原来的还是想选择的） is reasonable. As common sense, people would pursue more profit with less expenditure. So the service of EZ, of uncertain so-called better quality but higher price, is less likely to be welcomed by the public and Walnut Grove's town council. Thus, the author is unfairly asserting that Walnut Grove's town council is mistaken in choosing trash Collection Company. （开头和结尾搭不上啊，开头说wg的选择是正确的，…………因此，论者不公平的……？？）

In conclusion, to make the argument more logical and convincing, the author needs to offer extra detailed comparison between ABC Waste and EZ Disposal in ability of trash collection and satisfying degree of the two companies.

恩，整体不错噢，就是倒数第二段有点问题，楼主准备的很充分哈！！
Sign,我还没有开始写argument呢！！！唉

[ Last edited by batterfly on 2005-8-28 at 17:17 ]

cxlbread84UID: 184012

哈， 这是我去年的考题
去年只是套模板，没具体分析，楼主这篇不错啊
总体没什么错误，应该自己改过了吧
我感觉frequency用的不错，概括了一个错误
matching amount of additional trucks这个观点挺新的，这个还可以补充它买这些车是用于扩大生意，并不用于这小区
有一点不太同意 Further, it can not be exclude that those who were satisfied with EZ’s service last year are still support EZ nowadays. 其实在你字数绝对超过的情况下，不要用这样的语句，因为你也没说清楚为什么去年满意今年会不满意，按常理推断不符。欢迎就这方面讨论讨论。

batterflyUID: 196681

恩，我觉得可以阿
Further, it can not be exclude that those who were satisfied with EZ’s service last year are still support EZ nowadays，

我的意见是：
关于服务满意的调查不可信，多少人参加了调查；时效问题，去年的调查不说明今年的情况，即使去年人们是满意的，但是它服务费用的增加很有可能和这种满意程度不再成正比，所以即使去年有80%的人满意，也很难说明现在是满意的
呵呵，不知道对不对

[ Last edited by batterfly on 2005-8-28 at 19:39 ]

foreveraUID: 202035

batterfly关于第3和倒数第2段的意思我没看懂。。。

batterflyUID: 196681

关于第三段    车辆的多少也不说明公司的效率，这不能说EZ车多就可能提供更多的服务，很有可能EZ扩展了业务，比如为另一个城市服务，如果是这样，高的收费是为什么，作者没有提供提高收费的原因，不能盲目假设顾客从中得到了更多的服务，很有可能是因为EZ在这个地区的l垄断造成，那么为什么不试一下收费低的A公司呢？？作者并没有提供任何证据表明A公司的服务纪录是不好的

关于倒数第二段，估计我当时看晕了已经，刚才有仔细的看了一遍,开头和结尾不矛盾，我悔过！！！:L:L:L

[ Last edited by batterfly on 2005-8-28 at 22:51 ]

西湖龙井UID: 2104345

我觉得写的很好很全面
语言我很差，不能说啥
提两个建议：
１　关于survey，我觉得它调查了ＥＺ，８０％不能说明满意程度，毕竟有２０％不满意，应该再调查ＡＢＣ，也许有１００％都满意
２　倒数第二段，我觉得虽然argument的结论有问题，咱们也不能下结论说政府的结论是正确的，因为作者只是交代的不清楚吧，也许事实上ＥＺ确实比ＡＢＣ好呢，所以还是去掉第一句，把最后两段合起来写吧

我写的不好，只是建议撒，我写的在下面，请指教

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

foreveraUID: 202035

to西湖：
对于那个survey，既然都说明了它的不可信性，那里面的数据就没有价值了。无论是80%还是多少。。。你说的那个不是问题的主要方面个人觉得。
对于倒数第2段。。既然都证明了author的观点不能够另人信服。。既然没有足够理由证明政府的选择是错误的。。。那应该就可以承认它的合理性。。。。