argument17 高频，第四篇，12号作业

Esther.LiUID: 191003

——————题目——————
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."
——————正文——————
The arguer refuses to admit the Walnut Grove's town council's advocating to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste which is based on the fact that EZ raised its monthly fee recently but ABC Waste did not. To demonstrate his or her conclusion, the arguer lists three contractions. Although the evidence appears to be sufficient, when we examine it carefully, some faults still exist as follows.

To be the first, the arguer unfairly assumes that collecting twice is much better that once. Without concrete proof, we do not know the actual conditions of the town, so whether twice a week is needed still remains a problem. If the town does not produce garbage quickly, it would be a waste of materials and money to collect twice a week. Even if the town needs that, we can certainly suspect the service of EZ Disposal, which might form a cause of the choice of ABC Waste.

Secondly, giving the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks, the arguer suggests that EZ's trucks are more or better that ABC Waste, and EZ's work is more efficient. It is undoubtedly a false inference. As the arguer does not supply the survey of what trucks these two companies have owned, we can assume that ABC has already bought more advanced trucks that EZ's, and we can also doubt that EZ's trucks has been out of date or nearly worn out, so they has to buy new ones. Unless these problems are ruled out, the arguer's conclusion remains open to doubt.

Finally, the ratio 80 percent is not a sufficient statistic, which can rarely reason anything. It is obvious that respondents is not equal to all the users, additionally, how the arguer conducts this research is not given out, so this number might not be scientific. Even if the statistic is rightly got, without the survey of ABC users, the arguer can not make a contraction and say EZ is more popular, either.

To sum up, the arguer unfairly reasons the conclusion that the town should not switch to ABC company, to support this point of view, a list of evidence and statistics are used. However, the arguer still does not offer concrete research and have contraction scientifically made, so the suggestion is groundless and misleading.

( 380 words, 32 min )

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-12 at 22:39 ]

TheoUID: 2108316

The arguer refuses to admit( the Walnut Grove's town council's advocating（能加一个of吗？替换掉一个  ’s  ）to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste which is based on the fact that EZ raised its monthly fee recently but ABC Waste did not. To demonstrate his or her conclusion, the arguer lists three contractions. Although the evidence appears to be sufficient, when we examine it carefully, some faults still exist as follows.

To be the first, the arguer unfairly assumes that collecting twice is much better that (than)once. Without concrete proof, we do not know the actual conditions of the town, so whether twice a week is needed still remains a problem. If the town does not produce garbage quickly, it would be a waste of materials and money to collect twice a week. Even if the town needs that, we can certainly suspect the service of EZ Disposal, which might form a cause of the choice of ABC Waste.

Secondly, giving the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks, the arguer suggests that EZ's trucks are more or better that (than)ABC Waste, and EZ's work is more efficient. It is undoubtedly a false inference. As the arguer does not supply the survey of what trucks these two companies have owned, we can assume that ABC has already bought more advanced trucks that(than) EZ's, and we can also doubt that EZ's trucks has been out of date or nearly worn out, so they has to buy new ones. Unless these problems are ruled out, the arguer's conclusion remains open to doubt.

Finally, the ratio 80 percent is not a sufficient statistic, which can rarely reason anything. It is obvious that respondents is（are） not equal to all the users, (我觉得这里应该是说这些回复者并不能代表全部用户吧perhaps, the respondents cannot be representative of the overall group) additionally, (additionally是副词，这里应该有个连词吧)how the arguer conducts this research is not given out,(这里并不是arguer进行的调查，the procedure of that survey is obscure) so this number might not be scientific. Even if the statistic is rightly got, without the survey of ABC users, the arguer can not make a contraction and say EZ is more popular, either.(either在这里可以用吗？有了and,我也不知道)
To sum up, the arguer unfairly reasons the conclusion that the town should not switch to ABC company, to support this point of view, a list of evidence and statistics are used.（这句话没有连词，应该是粗心吧） However, the arguer still does not offer concrete research and have （has） contraction scientifically made, so the suggestion is groundless and misleading.

Esther.LiUID: 191003

Originally posted by Theo at 2005-8-12 17:47
Even if the statistic is rightly got, without the survey of ABC users, the arguer can not make a contraction and say EZ is more popular, either.(either在这里可以用吗？有了and,我也不知道)可以的啊，是not后边的too变成的either啊
However, the arguer still does not offer concrete research and have （has）前边有does，have和offer是并列的关系，所以我认为不用变成单三形式啦^ ^ contraction scientifically made, so the suggestion is groundless and misleading.  

The arguer refuses to admit the  town council's advocating to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste which is based on the fact that EZ raised its monthly fee recently but ABC Waste did not. To demonstrate his or her conclusion, the arguer lists three contractions. Although the evidence appears to be sufficient, when we examine it carefully, some faults still exist as follows.

To be the first, the arguer unfairly assumes that collecting twice is much better than once. Without concrete proof, we do not know the actual conditions of the town, so whether twice a week is needed still remains a problem. If the town does not produce garbage quickly, it would be a waste of materials and money to collect twice a week. Even if the town needs that, we can certainly suspect the service of EZ Disposal, which might form a cause of the choice of ABC Waste.

Secondly, giving the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks, the arguer suggests that EZ's trucks are more or better that than ABC Waste, and EZ's work is more efficient. It is undoubtedly a false inference. As the arguer does not supply the survey of what trucks these two companies have owned, we can assume that ABC has already bought more advanced trucks than EZ's, and we can also doubt that EZ's trucks has been out of date or nearly worn out, so they has to buy new ones. Unless these problems are ruled out, the arguer's conclusion remains open to doubt.

Finally, the ratio 80 percent is not a sufficient statistic, which can rarely reason anything. It is obvious that respondents are not certainly equal to all the users, so they can not be representative of the overall group.Additionally, the procedure of the survey is so obscure that the offered number might not be scientific. Even if the statistic is rightly got, without the survey of ABC users, the arguer can not make a contraction and say EZ is more popular, either.

To sum up, the arguer unfairly reasons the conclusion that the town should not switch to ABC company. To support this point of view, a list of evidence and statistics are used. However, the arguer still does not offer concrete research and have contraction scientifically made, so the suggestion is groundless and misleading.

非常感谢哦！作了一下修改，Theo帮偶看看逻辑上有没有什么问题啊？ ^_^

TheoUID: 2108316

我觉得逻辑上已经够了，目前我也只找到这逻辑错误。我总觉得the respondent那个地方有点不妥，偶觉得是这些人不具有代表性，呵呵。

Esther.LiUID: 191003

Originally posted by Theo at 2005-8-12 20:33
我觉得逻辑上已经够了，目前我也只找到这逻辑错误。我总觉得the respondent那个地方有点不妥，偶觉得是这些人不具有代表性，呵呵。

呵呵，我不是改成这样了么：It is obvious that respondents are not certainly equal to all the users, so they can not be representative of the overall group.
还不妥么？:)

TheoUID: 2108316

我理解你的文章为：他们不等同于全部用户，所以他们不能代表所有人。

我认为应该是他们不能代表所有人，（可能满意的人更愿意回复这个调查，而不满意的人不屑一顾）所以这个survey是无用的

Esther.LiUID: 191003

我认为你的理解被我的理解包含。正如你所说，不满意的人不屑一顾，可能导致这部分人不去回复，所以被调查者不能代表全部。

呵呵，不过无论如何，省略掉那半句更无懈可击一点 ：） Urs is better ^ ^

TheoUID: 2108316

呵呵，一起加油吧