argument17 期待互拍

chengenhuiUID: 200271

17The 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."

正文
Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that town council made a wrong conclusion that they advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his conclusion, he indicates that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. Moreover, he cites the evidence that EZ ordered additional trucks. Finally, he pointed out that 80percent respondents were satisfied with EZ performance. However, these alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor providing the compelling evidence.  The author ignores several key concerns, which must be addressed to prove.  In my point of view, the argument suffers several flaws.

In the first place, the author attempts to establish a casual relationship between the fact that EZ collect trash once more than ABC every week and claim that we should continue to choose EZ. This argument, nonetheless, is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of choice and the presumptuous correlation accordingly unacceptable. Actually it’s likely that there is not so much trash so that it needn't to collect trash twice a week. It is also possible that the ABC service quality is much better than EZ. Although they collect trash once a week, the environment of Walnut Grove's town is clearer than before.

In the second place, the author asserts that EZ has ordered additional trucks. However, the author fails to provide the evidence to illustrate that the new ordered trucks will be used for collecting trash in Walnut Grove's town. It is entirely possible that the truck will be used for another service of the EZ Company. Also there is other possibility that the volume of every truck in ABC is larger than that of EZ, so even EZ ordered more trucks, the total ability of collecting trash is still inferior to ABC. If we concede that the truck will be used for the service of Walnut Grove’s town, the author assumes that the more trucks are the better service they will provide. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily in the argument to support this assumption.

Last but not least, the argument rely on a survey that 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year. However the survey is too vague to be informative. The author provides no evidence to assure the survey statically reliable. Maybe the 80%percent of respondents are only the minority inhabitants of the Walnut Grove's town. In an extreme case, the EZ Company only provides exceptional service for the rich, and most respondents of the survey are the rich people, of course they are satisfied with the EZ performance, while most poor people maybe consider the EZ’s service quite poor. So the representative of sample in the survey is susceptible. And it's entirely possible that after they enjoy ABC service this year, they will no more satisfy with EZ's performance.

To sum up, the argument seems to be plausible; in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out key issues but also cites in analysis the evidence which does not lead strong support of what arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide other evidence to illustrate that EZ Company is superior to ABC Company. After that it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-18 at 23:23 ]

lleputaUID: 192475

1\结尾的总结显得太严厉了.
2\ 第一段的In my point of view,明显废话,应该删除.

popcatUID: 2105433

正文
Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that town council made a wrong conclusion that they advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his conclusion, he indicates that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. Moreover, he cites the evidence that EZ ordered additional trucks. Finally, he pointed out that 80percent respondents were satisfied with EZ performance. However, these alone neither constitutes constitute a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor providing provide the the删掉 compelling evidence evidences.  The author ignores several key concerns, which must be addressed to prove.  In my point of view, the argument suffers +from several flaws.

In the first place, the author attempts to establish a casual relationship between the fact that EZ collect trash once more than ABC every week and claim that we should continue to choose EZ. This argument, nonetheless, is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of choice and the presumptuous correlation accordingly unacceptable. Actually it’s likely that there is not so much trash so that it needn't to collect trash twice a week. It is also possible that the ABC service quality is much better than EZ. Although they collect trash once a week, the environment of Walnut Grove's town is would be clearer than before.

In the second place, the author asserts that EZ has ordered additional trucks. 这句话是事实，不是作者的断言，应该是基于这个事实，作者做出了EZ的服务必然会比ABC好的错误假设 However, the author fails to provide the evidence to illustrate that the new ordered trucks will be used for collecting trash in Walnut Grove's town. It is entirely possible that the truck will be used for another service of the EZ Company. Also there is other possibility that the volume of every truck in ABC is larger than that of EZ, so even EZ ordered more trucks, the total ability of collecting trash is still inferior to ABC. If we concede that the truck will be used for the service of Walnut Grove’s town, the author assumes that the more trucks are the better service they will provide. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily in the argument to support this assumption.

Last but not least, the argument rely on a survey that 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance last year. However the survey is too vague to be informative. The author provides no evidence to assure the survey statically reliable. Maybe the 80%percent of respondents are only the minority inhabitants of the Walnut Grove's town. In an extreme case, the EZ Company only provides exceptional service for the rich, and most respondents of the survey are the rich people, of course they are satisfied with the EZ performance, while most poor people maybe might，或者将maybe放在句首 consider the EZ’s service quite poor. So the representative 作代表性解时是否可作名词？ of sample in the survey is susceptible. And Futhermore, it's entirely possible that after they enjoy ABC service this year, they will would no more satisfy be satisfied with EZ's performance.

To sum up, the argument seems to be plausible; in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out key issues but also cites in analysis the evidence which does not lead strong support of to what arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide other evidence to illustrate that EZ Company is superior to ABC Company. After that it would have been more thorough and adequate. 这句话感觉读着很别扭，但好像也挑不出什么毛病

我的文章的链接　https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1，同一篇argu，欢迎回拍

[ Last edited by popcat on 2005-7-21 at 14:31 ]