argument17 G-89-互助社-8.10日同主题作文！欢迎互拍！

polymathUID: 179557

第4篇AGGUMENT！大家多提意见！:)

17.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 should continue contracting with EZ Disposal rather than switching to ABC Waste.To support this recommendation,the arguer cites the following facts:(1) EZ collects trash twice a week,while ABC collects only once.(2) although currently both companies have a same number of trucks,EZ has ordered additional trucks.(3) according to last year’s survey, 80% of respondents agreed that they are satisfied with EZ’ performance. However, close scrutiny reveals the argument is flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects twice a week while ABC collects only once lend no support to illustrate EZ’s service is better than ABC’s. If just once is enough, why should the town citizens need additional collection? Besides, EZ has raised its monthly fee to $2500,which exceeds ABC $500 per month. If the arguer provides no evidence that this additional fee is deserving, we have reasons to doubt that EZ is actually inferior to ABC.

Second, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks lends no support to EZ will provide better service than ABC. Common sense tells me it is only a operating action. Perhaps EZ will not use its new trucks for collection, or perhaps EZ’s current trucks are falling into disuse,and these new trucks will just replace them. Besides, the author doesnot indicate that whether ABC will also order new trucks, and when EZ’s new trucks will put into use; if EZ’s new trucks indeed serve later than ABC’s, the evidence would overturn the author’ suggestion thoroughly.

Last but not least, the recent survey in which 80% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with EZ’s service lends little support to the arguer’s recommendation. It is entirely possible that the town’s citizens have been accustomed to EZ’s performance for EZ has served them for ten years; without experiencing another company’s service and making a comparision, the residents can hardly claim EZ’s performance is not well. Besides, did the respondents volunteer for the survey or were they respresentive of all the EZ’users?If the arguer can not ruling out all these doubts, the result of the survey is unpersusive.

In sum, the arguer’s recommendation is largely unfounded. To bloster it the arguer must provide clear evidence that an additional trash collection and newly-ordered trucks will soon benefit the town.To further strengthen the argument, the arguer also should illustrate the survey is respresentive of all the residents whose trash were collected by EZ.(405)

[ Last edited by polymath on 2005-8-11 at 11:07 ]

polymathUID: 179557

自己顶!加加油！:D

xiliustreamUID: 205175

In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue contracting with EZ Disposal rather than switching to ABC Waste.To support this recommendation,the arguer cites the following facts1) EZ collects trash twice a week,while ABC collects only once.(2) although currently both companies have a same number of trucks,EZ has ordered additional trucks.(3) according to last year’s survey, 80% of respondents agreed that they are satisfied with EZ’ performance. However, close scrutiny reveals the argument is flawed in several critical respects. 开头没必要把题目说的这么细吧？ETS已经对题目很熟了

First of all, the fact that EZ collects twice a week while ABC collects only once lend(S) no support to illustrate EZ’s service is better than ABC’s. If just once is enough, why should the town citizens need additional collection? 这点在题上可看不出来，人家可没说居民需要两次。Besides, EZ has raised its monthly fee to $2500,which exceeds ABC $500 per month. If the arguer provides no evidence that this additional fee is deserving, we have reasons to doubt that EZ is actually inferior to ABC.没展开，依我之见，可以说下可能的原因就是EZ提高收费，但并没什么实际提高，或者居民愿不愿意这额外的支出

Second, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks lends no support to EZ will provide better service than ABC. Common sense tells me it is only a operating action. Perhaps EZ will not use its new trucks for collection, or perhaps EZ’s current trucks are falling into disuse,and these new trucks will just replace them. Besides, the author doesnot indicate that whether ABC will also order new trucks, and when EZ’s new trucks will put into use; if EZ’s new trucks indeed serve later than ABC’s, the evidence would overturn the author’ suggestion thoroughly. 还可能EZ的规模比较大呢，服务的地方比较多，这样它本来就需要更多的卡车

Last but not least, the recent survey in which 80% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with EZ’s service lends little support to the arguer’s recommendation. It is entirely possible that the town’s citizens have been accustomed to EZ’s performance for EZ has served them for ten years; without experiencing another company’s service and making a comparision, the residents can hardly claim EZ’s performance is not well. Besides, did the respondents volunteer for the survey or were they respresentive of all the EZ’users?又没展开，其实suvey是很有的批的，比如调查人数，数据处理，执行人可靠性啊，调查者是都回答了吗？If the arguer can not ruling out all these doubts, the result of the survey is unpersusive.还有，调查者没对居民对ABC的看法做调查啊，这不公平啊

In sum, the arguer’s recommendation is largely unfounded. To bloster it the arguer must provide clear evidence that an additional trash collection and newly-ordered trucks will soon benefit the town.To further strengthen the argument, the arguer also should illustrate the survey is respresentive of all the residents whose trash were collected by EZ.(405)

总体感觉就是开头结尾太长，body没展开，个人觉得调整下各块的比例才好。个人意见，希望多多包涵。也看下我的吧，谢了
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

polymathUID: 179557

谢谢xiliustream！你的意见很中肯！:)