argument17 走过路过不要错过

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

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：(423字）
1、可能ABC每周一次的服务足够
2、可能ABC的卡车数量足够
3、调查信息不够
――调查的人数占小镇总人数多少不太清楚
――可能ABC被调查，满意度会更高
In this argument, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove's town should continues hire EZ Disposal, the present corporation for trash collection, instead of ABC Waste. This recommendation is based on the observation that ABC collects trash only once a week, and only has a fleet of 20 trucks. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes EZ to be a better choice because EZ collects trash twice a week, has more trucks than ABC does, and provides exceptional services. This argument seems reasonable at first glance. But when exactly examined, it is problematic for three reasons.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to convince us that Walnut Grove town's present partner EZ should be continuing hired. First, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But he does not provide any evidence that Walnut Grove town need to be collected twice a week. Maybe once a week is enough for Walnut Grove town. If the town's trash is not so much and just need dispose once a week, it's better hire ABC Waste. Because EZ’s monthly fee is 2500 dollars, ABC’s fee is 2000 dollars.

Second, the arguer points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks besides a fleet of 20 trucks. But maybe ordered additional trucks are not going to be used for disposing trash. And since EZ bought some trucks, EZ raised its monthly fee from 2000 dollars to 2500 dollars. If 20 trucks are enough for disposing trash in Walnut Grove's town, choose ABC is better.

Third, the arguer points out that from a survey comes out EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey were satisfied with EZ's performance. But the information about the survey is vague. The arguer fails to make clear the exact number of those citizens who are inquired or their percentage in the population of the town. If only a small portion of the whole population is inquired, the survey was not convincing. Or if a survey is taken to inquire the situation about ABC, maybe more than 80 percent of respondents will satisfied with ABC's service.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts that EZ has to be hired to meet the requirements of Walnut Grove's town. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more information concerning the survey and more evidence concerning the service of EZ and how they can better meet the needs of Walnut Grove's town's citizens.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-12-17 at 18:13 ]

智恩UID：2160717

In this argument, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove's town should continues（去掉es）  （continue to do）hire EZ Disposal, the present corporation for trash collection, instead of ABC Waste. This recommendation is based on the observation（evidence更好） that ABC collects trash only once a week, and only has a fleet of 20 trucks. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes EZ to be a better choice because EZ collects trash twice a week, has more trucks than ABC does, and provides exceptional services. This argument seems reasonable at first glance. But when exactly examined, it is problematic for three reasons.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to convince us that Walnut Grove town's present partner EZ should be continuing hired. First, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. But he does not provide any evidence that Walnut Grove town need to be collected twice a week. Maybe once a week is enough for Walnut Grove town. If the town's trash is not so much and just need dispose once a week, it's better hire ABC Waste. Because EZ’s monthly fee is 2500 dollars,（while） ABC’s fee is 2000 dollars.

Second, the arguer points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks besides a fleet of 20 trucks. But maybe ordered additional trucks are not going to be used for disposing trash. And since EZ bought some trucks, EZ raised its monthly fee from 2000 dollars to 2500 dollars. If 20 trucks are enough for disposing trash in Walnut Grove's town, choose（choosing） ABC is better.

Third, the arguer points out that from a survey comes out EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey were satisfied with EZ's performance. But the information about the survey is vague. The arguer fails to make clear （make clear 和后面的不太通，用一个inform us就可以了）the exact number of those citizens who are inquired or their percentage in the population of the town. If only a small portion of the whole population is inquired, the survey was not convincing. Or if a survey is taken to inquire the situation about ABC, maybe more than 80 percent of respondents will satisfied with ABC's service.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts that EZ has to be hired to meet the requirements of Walnut Grove's town. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more information concerning the survey and more evidence concerning the service of EZ and how they can better meet the needs of Walnut Grove's town's citizens.

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

太感谢智恩了
只是我写的太烂，让你恶心了，嘻嘻··