Argument17 leedgen 的作业，留下互拍链接

leedgenUID: 160823

参考了老外argument范文

提纲：
1 EZ收垃圾一星期两次不算优势，可能他的工作效率比较低
2 定购了trucks也不能说明比ABC更具有优势
3 去年的调查也有疑问

The author's assertion seems correct and convincing at first glance that Walnut Grove's town should continue to use EZ Disposal rather than switch to ABC Waste even though EZ recently raised its monthly fee whereas ABC's fee remains $2,000. To demonstrate this conclusion, the arguer provides the seemingly powerful evidences that EZ collects trash more often and has a better truck fleet than ABC does. Moreover, the arguer cited last year's town survey result to support his claim. After a careful consideration, however, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

The conspicuous fallacy the arguer commits, which is considered as an overwhelming reason by the author, is that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once. The arguer unfairly assumes that twice a week trash collecting service has more advantages than once a week and also give us an impression that people at Walnut Grove's town should pay this extra service by paying a raised monthly fee $2500 instead of $2000 a month. Nonetheless we have no idea of the current situation at Walnut Grove's town and do not know whether it is necessary to collect trash twice a week there. It is highly possible that there is not so much wastes to collect, that is to say, collecting trash once a week is enough for the local people. This assumption might show that EZ Disposal offers an inefficient service and still asks for a higher monthly fee from people.

Another salient fallacy that undermines this argument is the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Obviously, this evidence lends little support to the author's conclusion for the reason that ordering additional trucks does not follow a better fleet of trucks. It is likely that the additional trucks EZ has ordered are just second-hand, whereas those of ABC are brand new ones. Therefore ABC Waste is more advantageous than EZ in the equipment.

To further solidify the conclusion that EZ provides exceptional service, the author cites the result of last year's town survey, which bears too many apparent deficiencies. 80 percent of respondents agreed with the satisfactory performance of EZ Disposal at the last year's survey and will these people still be satisfied with EZ this year? Besides, the author gives us little information about those respondents: do they also know about ABC Waste? did they once try the service from ABC? Without these information, we might conclude this result of survey is too questionable and weak to reinforce the argument.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would need more evidence to prove that EZ is more superior than ABC concerning  the environment of the town and the current trucks' condition of them.

这个正好上周练过，issue还没有写呢，法律好难弄啊

[ Last edited by leedgen on 2005-12-17 at 16:08 ]

leedgenUID: 160823

大家帮忙拍砖吧，留下互改链接，谢谢啦

智恩UID: 2160717

The author's assertion seems correct and convincing at first glance that Walnut Grove's town should continue to use EZ Disposal rather than switch to ABC Waste even though EZ recently raised its monthly fee whereas ABC's fee remains $2,000. To demonstrate this conclusion, the arguer provides the seemingly powerful evidences that EZ collects trash more often and has a better truck fleet than ABC does. Moreover, the arguer cited last year's town survey result to support his claim. After a careful consideration, however, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

The conspicuous fallacy the arguer commits, which is considered as an overwhelming reason by the author, is that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once. The arguer unfairly assumes that twice a week trash collecting service has more advantages than once a week and also give us an impression that people at Walnut Grove's town should pay this extra service by paying a raised monthly fee $2500 instead of $2000 a month. Nonetheless we have no idea of the current situation at Walnut Grove's town and do not know whether it is necessary to collect trash twice a week there. It is highly possible that there is not so much wastes to collect, that is to say, collecting trash once a week is enough for the local people. This assumption might show that EZ Disposal offers an inefficient service and still asks for a higher monthly fee from people.

Another salient fallacy that undermines this argument is the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks. Obviously, this evidence lends little support to the author's conclusion for the reason that ordering additional trucks does not follow a better fleet of trucks. It is likely that the additional trucks（of） EZ has ordered are just second-hand, whereas those of ABC are brand new ones. Therefore ABC Waste is more advantageous than EZ in the equipment.

To further solidify the conclusion that EZ provides exceptional service, the author cites the result of last year's town survey, which bears too many apparent deficiencies. 80 percent of respondents agreed with the satisfactory performance of EZ Disposal at the last year's survey and will these people still be satisfied with EZ this year? Besides, the author gives us little information about those respondents: do they also know about ABC Waste? did they once try the service from ABC? Without these information, we might conclude this result of survey is too questionable and weak to reinforce the argument.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would need more evidence to prove that EZ is more superior than ABC concerning  the environment of the town and the current trucks' condition of them.
总的来说写得可以，也没什么错误，还有一点可以说的就是，EZ定的trucks也不一定会用于WGtown。继续加油！