Argument17 北京高频，几天没写，有点手生。望互拍！第5篇

amanda1011UID: 2106668

------摘要------
作者：amanda1011     共用时间：30分3秒     399 words
从2005年6月27日23时41分到2005年6月28日0时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In the statement above, the arguer raises his opinion different from the town council which recommends choosing EZ Disposal rather than ABC because EZ provides exceptional service, collects trash twice a week and have more trucks than ABC although the EZ raises its charge. At the first glance, it seems to be convincing and sound, but after a careful consideration, I found a lot of logic flaws in the argument.

The arguer simply assumes that to pay $2500 for service twice a week would be better than $2,000 for once a week.  He may overlook that the trash amount of the Grove town is also an important factor in choosing the disposal company. If we do not have so much trash that twice a week would be unnecessary. It seems to be absurd to pay more for something we do not need.

Moreover, the arguer claims that the EZ has ordered additional trucks and ABC currently would still maintain a fleet of 20 trucks. But he fails to provide us the detail about the trucks in the fleets of EZ and ABC. It is possible that the trucks in fleet of EZ have been used for a long time and would be stopped for use. In that case, the trucks it has ordered would be considered as a necessary input of the EZ Company.

The arguer also gives us a survey as the evidence to convince us of the exceptional service of EZ. But we have no idea about the samples of the survey. Do all the people respond to the survey rather than those who are content with the EZ's performance? Will they still support the EZ if they know it would raise its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month? Besides, the arguer does not give ABC an equal opportunity to be compared with EZ. It is highly possible that if the residents in Grove town try the service of ABC, 100 percent of they would prefer ABC to EZ. It is unfair for ABC to assume that the service of EZ would be better than ABC.

In sum, the arguer does not provide enough information for us to make a choice between EZ and ABC. Maybe after the test use of the ABC Company, he would also change his mind. Since there are so many logic errors in the reasoning of the arguer, we have every reason to doubt on his recommendation.

marine4246UID: 192140

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In the statement above, the arguer raises his opinion different from the town council whichwho recommends choosing EZ Disposal rather than ABC because EZ provides exceptional service, collects trash twice a week and havehas more trucks than ABC although the EZ raises its charge. At the first glance, it seems to be convincing and sound, but after a careful consideration, I foundfind a lot of logic flaws in the argument.第一段分析的还很简练，不错

The arguer simply assumes that to pay $2500 for service twice a week would be better than $2,000 for once a week.  He may overlook that the trash amount of the Grove town is also an important factor in choosing the disposal company. If we do not have so much trash that twice a week would be unnecessary. It seems to be absurd to pay more for something we do not need.

Moreover, the arguer claims that the EZ has ordered additional trucks and ABC currently would still maintain a fleet of 20 trucks后面这半句题目中是没有明确表述的，可以加个possibly吧. But he fails to provide us the detail about the trucks in the fleets of EZ and ABC. It is possible that the 加个existing吧trucks in fleet of EZ have been used for a long time and would be stopped for usefor maintenance吧. In that case, the trucks it has ordered would be considered as a necessary input of the EZ Company.这儿可以强调一下定购的车对公司收垃圾的能力没有太大的改变？which shows nothing different in collecting trash

The arguer also gives us a survey in which 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ'S performance last yearas the evidence to convince us of the exceptional service of EZ. But we have no idea about the samples of the survey. Do all the people respond to the survey rather than those who are content with the EZ's performance? Will they still support the EZ if they know it would raise its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a montha month 去掉，重复了? Besides, the arguer does not give ABC an equal opportunity to be compared with EZ. 可以展开一下，怎么没给平等的机会？It is highly possible that if the residents in Grove town try the service of ABC, 100 percent of theythem would prefer ABC to EZ. It is unfair for ABC to assume that the service of EZ would be better than ABC.

In sum, the arguer does not provide enough information for us to make a choice between EZ and ABC. Maybe after the test use of the ABC Company, he would also change his mind. Since there are so many logic errors in the reasoning of the arguer, we have everyvery reason to doubt onon去掉吧？ his recommendation. 结尾标新立异，不同于常规模板！
文章总体读下来还是很不错的，但感觉最大的问题在于连接词的用法，作者可以在连接词方面多下下功夫，使文章读下来连贯通顺，而不是像现在感觉有点僵硬的感觉；另外，论述过程中，有些地方还可以适当地强调一下错误的具体原因和适当地展开一下反驳。
这是我第一次给别人改文章，我自己写得也不是很多，改的意见你仅做参考吧，呵呵！

[ Last edited by marine4246 on 2005-8-9 at 21:37 ]

amanda1011UID: 2106668

谢谢楼上的兄弟，我会认真考虑，继续努力的！！

yysuUID: 205455

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D3

我现在来拜读你的了！