Argument17 第二次作业 请多指教 谢谢^-^

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

Argument17

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."

Outline：
1.        The author provides no evidence to demonstrate that it is really necessary for Walnut Grove to collect trash twice a week.（可能镇小人口少消费少，制造的垃圾也少，捡两次有必要么？）
2.        That EZ has ordered additional trucks does not necessarily imply that EZ will be more efficient and better. （车多就一定有效么？这好像什么也不能代表吧！）
3.        According to the survey quoted in the argument, we see no such procedure of random sampling and thus have good reason to doubt its representative of the town as a whole.(参加调查的人数，代表性，还有可能本地只有这一家垃圾收捡企业，所以根本没有比较，怎么知道好不好呢？)

In this argument, the author claims that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ rather than ABC Waste, to support this claim the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week comparing with ABC's only once and that EZ has ordered additional trucks, furthermore cited a survey held in the town last year to show that EZ provides outstanding service. The author's recommendation that EZ should be chosen seems plausible at first glance; however, if we make a careful examination on it, several flaws will be exposed conspicuously.

First of all, the author provides no evidence to demonstrate that it is really necessary for Walnut Grove to collect trash twice a week. It may be entirely possible that the scale of Walnut Grove is small and the number of residents is minor. For that matter, the town may produce little trash in a week and thus collecting trash twice a week is nothing but a waste of time and money especially given that EZ's fee increases from $2,000 to $2,500 a week.

In addition, that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not necessarily imply that EZ will be more efficient and better in service's quality than both itself before and ABC Waste. While it may be true that additional trucks put into use will make trash collecting more efficient based on premise that Walnut Grove is badly in need of more trucks to do the collecting. There is a good chance that the current trucks are enough for trash collecting in the town. In that case, the additional trucks will be little use. Besides, even if the additional trucks do go a long way toward trash collecting in the town, no information, however, is provided to reveal that ABC has not ordered additional trucks just like EZ. Since the author fails to respond adequately to this concern, the claim that EZ should be chosen which hinges on this point is untenable.

Finally, according to the survey quoted in the argument, we see no such procedure of random sampling and thus have good reason to doubt its representative of the town as a whole. It may be possible that the dissatisfied people do not respond the survey at all. Moreover, the author points out that Walnut Grove has had a contract with EZ for ten years, hence it may be entirely possible that EZ is the only one collecting trash in the town. If so, however, the respondents can not compare it with other trash collectors and thereby know whether or not EZ's service is good enough. Simply put, lacking evidence mentioned above the survey cited is open to doubt.

To sum up, it is hasty for the author to come to the conclusion that EZ should be chosen only on the basis of the problematic evidences discussed above. To make the argument more convincing, the author needs to provide more evidence on the necessity of collecting trash twice a week in Walnut Grove and render specific information on ABC's service quality; otherwise, the argument will be logically unfounded.

智恩UID: 2160717

In this argument, the author claims that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ rather than ABC Waste, to support this claim the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week comparing with ABC's only once and that EZ has ordered additional trucks, furthermore cited a survey held in the town last year to show that EZ provides outstanding service.（其实这句话可以分几句来说，这样看起来不会那么累） The author's recommendation that EZ should be chosen seems plausible at first glance; however, if we make a careful examination on it, several flaws will be exposed conspicuously.

First of all, the author provides no evidence to demonstrate that it is really necessary for Walnut Grove to collect trash twice a week. It may be entirely possible（may be和possible重复，去掉一个吧） that the scale of Walnut Grove is small and the number of residents is minor. For that matter, the town may produce little trash in a week and thus collecting trash twice a week is nothing but a waste of time and money especially given that EZ's fee increases from $2,000 to $2,500 a week.

In addition, that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not necessarily imply that EZ will be more efficient and better in service's quality than both itself before and ABC Waste. While it may be true that additional trucks put into use will make trash collecting more efficient based on premise that Walnut Grove is badly in need of more trucks to do the collecting. There is a good chance that the current trucks are enough for trash collecting in the town. In that case, the additional trucks will be（of） little use. Besides, even if the additional trucks do go a long way toward trash collecting in the town, no information, however, is provided to reveal that ABC has not ordered additional trucks just like EZ. Since the author fails to respond adequately to this concern, the claim that EZ should be chosen which hinges on this point is untenable.

Finally, according to the survey quoted in the argument, we see no such procedure of random sampling and thus have good reason to doubt its representative（representativeness） of the town as a whole. It may be possible that the dissatisfied people do not respond the survey at all. Moreover, the author points out that Walnut Grove has had a contract with EZ for ten years, hence it may be entirely possible（重复，和上面一样） that EZ is the only one collecting trash in the town. If so, however, the respondents can not compare it with other trash collectors and thereby know whether or not EZ's service is good enough. Simply put, lacking evidence mentioned above the survey cited is open to doubt.

To sum up, it is hasty for the author to come to the conclusion that EZ should be chosen only on the basis of the problematic evidences discussed above. To make the argument more convincing, the author needs to provide more evidence on the necessity of collecting trash twice a week in Walnut Grove and render specific information on ABC's service quality; otherwise, the argument will be logically unfounded

总的错误都找到了，就是注意一下句子的变化，你的作文继续练下去，会越来越好的。那个句子，说it is entirely possible 就可以了。Fighting!