argument17 还有20天上考场，今天开始正式模考

d_messiahUID: 177468

ARGU17. 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."

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove town (WG) should continue using EZ, rather than swifting to ABC. By a carefulf examation, however, the process of deducting is open to doubt, and exposes several critical flaws as follows.

To bigin with, the author points out that although EZ raised the fee by $500 a month, EZ collects twice a week compared only one collect provided by ABC. However, the author provides no assurance that such surplus one collect a week is necessary for WG. Perhaps WG has only a smalll population, and then the amount of garbage is every little, which need not collecting two times a week. Moreover, the mere fact that the collecting by EZ are more often than that of ABC does not amount to the assumption that the quality of collect by EZ is better than that of ABC’s.

Next, the aruthor fails to provide the information that the EZ’s additional trucks make sense for WG and are available to it. As the author shows in the letter that now both EZ and ABC have a fleet of 20 trucks, it is possible that 20 trucks can already meet the need of WG. For that matter, althongh the additional trucks possiblely makes sense for WG, it is unfairly to claim that EZ will put these trucks to work- let alone to do the collect services of WG. If so, such a condition is not worth our considering. In addition, the author fails to take into account the possibility that the trucks of EZ and ABC are not the same type. It is perhaps that the trucks of ABE are more efficient than thoes of EZ, in spite of the number of trucks.  

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that the respondents can represent the total citizens of WZ, who served by EZ. It is perhaps that more of the respondents are those who are sstisfied with the service provided by EZ, but these respondents are only a small portion of the citizens. Even if the respondents can represent the totlal citizens, it is unfairly to say that the EZ’s services is better than ABC’s, because the author neglect the fact that if the citizens are served by ABC, more respondents will claim that they satisfy with the collect services.

To sum up, the the author’s claim that we should continue using EZ to collect the garbage of WG is unwarranted. Unless the author omit such key issues, and provide evidence to lend strong credence to his conclution, we can not accept it.

lleputaUID: 192475

In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove town (WG) should continue using EZ, rather than swifting to ABC.(是不是应该提到作者的论据?) By a carefulf examation, however, the process of deducting is open to doubt, and exposes several critical flaws as follows.

To bigin(begin,单词都错了.) with, the author points out that although EZ raised the fee by $500 a month,(but,连词都没有.) EZ collects twice a week compared only one collect(collection) provided by ABC. However, the author provides no assurance that such surplus one collect (collection)a week is necessary for WG. Perhaps WG has only a smalll population,(there's a small population in WG.) and then the amount of garbage is every (very?)little, which need not collecting(collect) two times(twice) a week. Moreover, the mere fact that the collecting (collection service provided)by EZ are more often than that of (of 删掉)ABC does not amount to the assumption that the quality of collect(参照前面) by EZ is better than that of ABC’s.

Next, the aruthor fails to provide the information that the EZ’s additional trucks make sense for WG and are available to it. As the author shows in the letter that now both EZ and ABC have a fleet of 20 trucks, it is possible that 20 trucks can already meet the need of WG. For that matter, althongh the additional trucks possiblely (possibly)makes sense for WG, it is unfairly to claim that EZ will put these trucks to work- let alone to do the collect services of WG. If so, such a condition is not worth our considering. In addition, the author fails to(forget to 避免重复) take into account the possibility that the trucks of EZ and ABC are not the same type. It is perhaps that the trucks of ABE are more efficient than thoes(those) of EZ, in spite of the number of trucks.  

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that the respondents can represent the total citizens of WZ, who served by EZ. It is perhaps that more of the respondents are those who are sstisfied with the service provided by EZ, but these respondents are only a small portion of the citizens. Even if the respondents can represent the totlal citizens, it is unfairly to say that the EZ’s services is better than ABC’s, because the author neglect the fact that if the citizens are served by ABC, more respondents will claim that they satisfy with the collect services.

To sum up, the the author’s claim that we should continue using EZ to collect the garbage of WG is unwarranted. Unless the author omit such key issues, and provide evidence to lend strong credence to his conclution, we can not accept it.

看不下去了,
1\每个分论点的主旨句很不精练.建议再明确一点指出作者错误.
2\整篇文章逻辑性不强.有凑字数的感觉,不知道作者能在30分钟内写完这个长篇么?建议写了主旨句后,用更精练的语言举举例说明,不要绕来绕去.
3\单词拼写错误太多了,而且有些语法好象也不对.

不要太着急哟,心态很重要...

虽然批驳了这么多,,^_^实际上我是新人来着,才写了3篇A,I还没动,没人批我,我同学帮我改文章,错误比你还多,所以你就表郁闷了哈..

d_messiahUID: 177468

谢谢你的修改,难为你了，确实拼写错误很多，我后来自己改也发现了,由于当时正中午,敲完了就给贴出来了(是35分钟内写的) ,下次得改改再拿来

不过,你说的开头要提出论据,我过去也是按照那么写的,不过通过分析了ETS 的范文后,发现开头的论据重复似乎没必要,个人觉得指出论点就行了.罗列论据我觉得有凑字嫌疑.这也是我第一次省略了论据的陈述

我也觉得自己的主题句没啥变化,正在积累中.至于后面的举例 ,我通过比较了ETS 的范文和北美的范文,发现ETS 的范文在分析时讲的很透,并非像那本北美范文一样,简单的举出例子,总感觉简单举例子,省略了很多东西留给读者思考.当然,我还得总结以下,是否这么说在绕