argument11 欢迎拍文！！

Ocean~SprayUID: 2847693

TOPIC: ARGUMENT11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
WORDS: 380
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-17 17:51:25

This memo concludes that the available space in the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted because of the residents' strong commitment to that they would do more recycling in the future according to a recent survey. To further support the conclusion the memo mentions that the town during the past years have recycled more aluminum and paper, and that charges for garbage pickup will double. However I find this memo logically problematic after careful examination.

To begin with, the arguer cites the fact that during the last two years twice aluminum and paper have been recycled. Yet he fails to recognize that aluminum and paper are merely two kinds of garbage among the whole trash; what if residents in the town are just interested in recycling these two assorts while uninterested in other stuff? Then the total recycling rate can still be low, so it is inadequate to conclude that the overall garbage recycling rate is increasing with the double of aluminum and paper recycling.

In addition, the argument lies on an unreliable assumption that the double in charges for garbage pickup will lead to further increase of the amount of material recycled. However, some garbage, except to be buried, have little approaches to be dealt with. Even raising the charge of pickup can not decrease the amount and increase the rate of recycle.

Finally, a survey, conducted in the town to research residents' willing to recycle, shows 90% are pleased to do more recycling. Whereas no evidences are provided to support that the survey is trustworthy. Many factors may contribute to a wrong conclusion. How many residents were surveyed? How about 10? In this case the result of the research only represents a small part of the residents in the town. Moreover, are these people from different group? If they are mostly from the environmental protection club then they will surely agree to do more recycling, which makes the "strong commitment" unconvincing.

To sum up, the arguer needs to provide further facts and evidence that in the past years the residents did recycle more garbage than predict; and that the raise of garbage pickup cost will results to the increase of recycling. To further convince me he should provide detailed survey about the attitudes of the residents.

fchenyanUID: 2804020

This memo concludes that the available space in the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted because of the residents' strong commitment to that they would do more recycling in the future according to a recent survey. To further support the conclusion the memo mentions that the town during the past years have （has）recycled more aluminum and paper, and that charges for garbage pickup will double. However I find this memo logically problematic after careful examination.

To begin with, the arguer cites the fact that during the last two years twice aluminum and paper have been recycled. Yet he fails to recognize that aluminum and paper are merely two kinds of garbage among the whole trash; what if residents in the town are just interested in recycling these two assorts while uninterested in other stuff? Then the total recycling rate can still be low, so it is inadequate to conclude that the overall garbage recycling rate is increasing with the double of aluminum and paper recycling.

In addition, the argument lies on an unreliable assumption that the double in charges for garbage pickup will lead to further increase of the amount of material recycled. However, some garbage, except to be buried, have little approaches to be dealt with. Even raising the charge of pickup can not decrease the amount and increase the rate of recycle.

Finally, a survey, conducted in the town to research residents' willing to recycle, shows 90% are pleased to do more recycling. Whereas no evidences are provided to support that the survey is trustworthy. Many factors may contribute to a wrong conclusion. How many residents were surveyed? How about 10? In this case the result of the research only represents a small part of the residents in the town. Moreover, are these people from different group? If they are mostly from the environmental protection club then they will surely agree to do more recycling, which makes the "strong commitment" unconvincing.

To sum up, the arguer needs to provide further facts and evidence that in the past years the residents did recycle more garbage than predict; and that the raise of garbage pickup cost will results to the increase of recycling. To further convince me he should provide detailed survey about the attitudes of the residents.(文章过于简短，建议仔细分析题目，你会发现更多可以说的地方)
恕我直言看过你的issue和argument我的感觉就是句子比较生硬。

Ocean~SprayUID: 2847693

短时间内提高应该还要多背背吧。有时候写着自己把自己卡住了~没有形成英语思维。