Argument17【六人行小组7.26】by xyjprc

xyjprcUID: 2412778

嗯首先还是要感谢帮我改作文的同学~~~谢谢谢谢~~~
这篇Argument写起来感觉比Issue顺多了，可能因为它是我第二次动手第二次在AWP里写的第二篇习作吧，稍微找到了一些感觉，再加上Argument逻辑比较清楚，语言表达上又有模板可套，也没有限时，所以写起来还算比较轻松了。当然肯定还有许多问题了（虽然我放到word里语法拼写检查居然全对，但你知道word的这个工具的效果究竟有多大的。。。），特别是漏掉的重要攻击点和不规范的地方，还麻烦帮我看看啦~
最后再次感谢Eileen的组织，今天虽然是第一天，不过收获很大，虽然不算是good beginning，不算是half done，但至少开了个头，以后路还长啊！
其实想来也不会有多么可怕，那么多杀G的人不都闯过去了么。。。Issue只是AW的一部分，AW只是GRE的一部分，GRE只是申请的一部分，申请只是漫漫求学之路的一部分，求学只是人生的一部分，说起来会有多可怕呢，如果连Issue都写不好，以后还能指望做什么事呢？


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: 543
TIME: 00:55:29
DATE: 7/26/2010 8:16:52 PM

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making comparisons between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste and point out that EZ Disposal collects trash more frequently, would have additional trucks and have received satisfying response, the argument for not switching from EZ Disposal to ABC waste seems logical.

However, EZ's collecting trash more frequently than ABC does not necessarily mean that EZ is better. The argument's author fails to consider the possibility that citizens in Walnut Grove do not have that much waste to dispose everyday that collecting the trash once a day is adequate. Also the citizens may just have the habit to have their wastes collected only in the morning at 6 o'clock. Too frequent collection of trash may even disturb people's daily life, for the process of trash collection would more or less make some noise. Moreover, if ABC waste make certain requirements on waste collection like that they only collect recyclable wastes in their first coming and other waste in the second, while EZ conveniently collects all the garbage once, the inhabitants in Walnut Grove would have no reason to choose ABC Waste.

Another point the writer of the letter stress is that EZ Disposal has ordered additional trucks. What if ABC Waste has ordered more trucks but the writer simply does not know? Assuming that the truck number in EZ would be more than in ABC, what about the capacity of those trucks? A big truck's capacity may be more than two small truck's capacity, making the number of trucks just meaningless. Even assuming that the capacity of trucks in two disposal companies are the same, more trucks do not necessarily mean that the service would be better. It is more likely that those newly ordered trucks in EZ would be assigned for another town but not Walnut Grove, and the order of additional trucks would never affect EZ's service, if possible, in Walnut Grove.

The evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. First of all, the respondents may not be representative to all survey-takers, for those who think EZ's service unsatisfied may not give direct response to the survey. Additionally, unless it can be shown that the respondents is representative of all citizens in Walnut Grove, the conclusion that EZ provides exceptional service is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all. Even if most inhabitants are currently satisfied with EZ's service, it does not necessarily mean that EZ would continue to offer such good service, and no one would ever know. Meanwhile, the author of the letter probably has no idea how others feel about ABC's service. If ABC Waste really offers better service at a lower prize, then it could be the author's fault if the council reads the newspaper and decides to choose EZ Disposal.

Overall, the reasoning behind the argument of choosing EZ Disposal seems logical as presented above since EZ, although it has recently raised its monthly fee, has some seemingly advantages compared with ABC Waste, the town council in Walnut Grove should evaluate all possible alternatives that the real service quality could be better in ABC Waste than in EZ Disposal.

thisisyishuUID: 2586842

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: 543
TIME: 00:55:29
DATE: 7/26/2010 8:16:52 PM

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making comparisons between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste and point out that EZ Disposal collects trash more frequently, would have additional trucks and have received satisfying response, the argument for not switching from EZ Disposal to ABC waste seems logical.
简练的一句话把上文概括完了。看到the argument……seems logical.本段就完了真是吓我一大跳~~看到第二段的However，才放下心来。通常我看的范文都是第一段里就说原文不行了，然后接下来就开始展开说各种不行。我记得以前上新东方老师也说过不用分很多段的，你再考虑一下这个开头段问题吧，虽然我觉得也不是本质问题。
However, EZ's collecting trash more frequently than ABC does not necessarily mean that EZ is better. The argument's author fails to consider(fails to take into consider)
the possibility that citizens in Walnut Grove do not have that much waste to dispose everyday that (and) collecting the trash once a day is adequate. Also the citizens may just have the habit to have their wastes collected only in the morning at 6 o'clock. (哇好精确的假设，不如说每天的一个固定时间at a fixed time) Too frequent collection of trash may even disturb people's daily life, for the process of trash collection would more or less make some noise. Moreover, if ABC waste make certain requirements on waste collection like that they only collect recyclable wastes in their first coming and other waste in the second, while EZ conveniently collects all the garbage once, the inhabitants in Walnut Grove would have no reason to choose ABC Waste.

Another point the writer of the letter stress is that EZ Disposal has ordered additional trucks. What if ABC Waste has ordered more trucks but the writer simply does not know? Assuming that the truck number in EZ would be more than in ABC, what about the capacity of those trucks?咦，你没有像大家一样套那么多模板呢，牛人哦~~不过适当套点模板我觉得读起来更严谨一点。像这样连着两个what if的反问感觉有点情绪在里面了呢。这种情况下常见的模板是：Perhaps….;even if ….it is entirely possible that …之类，也能递进一下，argument最重要就是逻辑要清晰吧，两个what if感觉就过于匀质了，会有逻辑不够强的感觉。 A big truck's capacity may be more than two small truck's capacity, making the number of trucks just meaningless. Even assuming that the capacity of trucks in two disposal companies are the same, more trucks do not necessarily mean that the service would be better. It is more likely that those newly ordered trucks in EZ would be assigned for another town but not Walnut Grove, and the order of additional trucks would never affect EZ's service, if possible, in Walnut Grove.

The evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. First of all, the respondents may not be representative to all survey-takers, for those who think EZ's service unsatisfied may not give direct response to the survey. Additionally, unless it can be shown that the respondents is representative of all citizens in Walnut Grove, the conclusion that EZ provides exceptional service is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of （in face of 感觉不合适）such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all. Even if most inhabitants are currently satisfied with EZ's service, it does not necessarily mean that EZ would continue to offer such good service, and no one would ever know.这句不是很有必要 Meanwhile, the author of the letter probably has no idea how others（others是谁？太口语了。是inhabitants吗） feel about ABC's service. If ABC Waste really offers better service at a lower prize, then it could be the author's fault if the council reads the newspaper and decides to choose EZ Disposal.（呵呵，这句好任性啊，好像在说，都怪你~~
应该说没有排除ABC物美价廉的情况下，作者选择EZ的做法无法让人信服。例如：the author unfairly assumes that ABC没有提供跟EZ一样好的服务，lacking the evidence that EZ 真的比ABC好，it is entirely possible that ABC是物美价廉的，for that matter,作者推荐EZ可能是错误的
可以不套模板，但是这些句子的顺序和连接一定要有条理的捋顺了）

Overall, the reasoning behind the argument of choosing EZ Disposal seems logical as presented above加句号 since EZ, although it has recently raised its monthly fee, has some seemingly advantages compared with ABC Waste, the town council in Walnut Grove should evaluate all possible alternatives that the real service quality could be better in ABC Waste than in EZ Disposal.
个人认为这个seems logical不用提两次，你的文章是挑他不logical的地方的。至少不logical的地方在这段里应该占比重更大，不然感觉结尾太仓促。
看得出你用英语很顺手，但是有点口语化了，再严谨点吧，在逻辑关系上多推敲。适当背些模板应该有好处，因为那些多出现在逻辑转折处，而且也可以作为你寻找逻辑错误的提示。

嗯， 就该这么多了， 牛人战友， 抱歉我改得也不是很有逻辑，就是在我看到有点不对劲的旁边标记了一下而已，有什么意见请尽管告诉我。继续加油哦